Brewer Vetoes SB 1062
Feb 26, 2014 Political
Governor Brewer of Arizona vetoed SB 1062 the bill that has been mischaracterized as an anti gay bill. The bill was labeled as one that would allow businesses to discriminate against gay people even though the bill does not mention gay people.
The bill allowed a business to not participate in any event that would violate the religious beliefs of the business owner. This is different than discrimination. In fact, forcing a business to participate is discrimination against the business because it forces the business to participate in something that it is opposed to.
Let us make sure the difference is spelled out. If an individual goes into a business whose owners are pro choice and wears a pro life shirt the business would discriminate if it refused to serve the person because that person is not asking or forcing the business to participate in her particular belief.
However, if that very pro life person was holding a right to life event and asked the pro choice business owner to cater the event the business is free to refuse because that would be participating in an event contrary to the owner’s beliefs. If the pro life person then sues and the business is forced to participate by the courts then the business was discriminated against.
This is what SB 1062 was designed to prevent. We have all heard the stories about the intolerant gays who sued because a business refused to photograph or bake for their wedding. This is where the problem lies. The people who oppose the bill believe that they have a right and you do not have the same right. You see, they are free to choose to live a certain lifestyle and you are free NOT to participate but they do not see it that way.
This in no way means you have a right to discriminate against the individual for his beliefs. You do have a right not to participate in their events if you are opposed to them.
I believe Jan Brewer folded under pressure from the NFL and other entities that threatened to pull out of the state. The NFL was working on moving the Superbowl to Tampa because of this issue.
Let me be clear. It is now time to remove the NFL’s tax exemption because it is involving itself in political issues. It has done so in the past and their extortion continues. If they can hold the Superbowl over the head of states for political issues what will stop them from refusing to have the SB in states that honor the Second Amendment? They have involved themselves in politics and now their tax exempt status has to go.
I also want to be clear on another thing. I am not an Arizonan and this bill is not my issue. I do not believe the bill should have been introduced because I do not believe it should be necessary.
We have the right to free association and we have the right to NOT participate in anything we oppose (whether it is religious belief based or otherwise). We should not need a law to exercise that right.
Unfortunately, the recent cases where business owners have been forced to participate in things they oppose has given rise to the push for such legislation.
As a nation we need to stand up to tyranny and to say no when we do not want to participate. If a business does not want to participate in an event it has the right not to. There are plenty of other businesses who will be happy to participate.
Lawsuits based on refusal should be thrown out as frivolous.
When the inevitable lawsuit happens because some person or group gets upset at some business in Arizona that refuses to participate in something they disagree with Jan Brewer needs to be the one held accountable.
As should the courts because they must refuse to hear these cases.
We do not need laws to allow us to exercise our rights. We do though, need laws to keep people from infringing upon them.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: discrimination, jan brewer, sb 1062, veto
Will She Rent To Illegal Aliens?
Jun 4, 2012 Political
A woman in Massachusetts decided not to rent an apartment to a person seeking a place to live. The person was not some drug addicted alcoholic or maggot infested hippie. This person was not even an Occupy moron which is just silly because that person would expect the place to be rent free.
It seems that if any of the above mentioned types had applied they would have gotten the place. But SGT Joel Morgan, a National Guardsman, was deemed unacceptable to Janice Roberts, the owner of the apartment.
Roberts is anti war and believes that renting to a person who serves in the military (and who actually served in the war zone) would create a conflict of interest.
SGT Morgan has decided to sue Ms. Roberts and I hope he wins and wins big.
Isn’t it amazing that liberal localities and activist judges make it criminal to ask immigration status of people desiring to rent but the honorable service to our country is a disqualifier?
I wonder what would have happened if Roberts denied an illegal alien the apartment?
I wonder what would have happened if she had denied the apartment to a gay person?
It is highly unlikely that Roberts opposes those two issues but some people do so what would happen if they applied the Roberts’ logic when deciding to rent to people?
While I find it sad that our country has people like Roberts I find it even more so that this takes place in Massachusetts, a state that has a proud history of patriotism and service in peace and war. Many of this Nation’s battles for freedom were fought in that once great state.
Now it is a haven for liberal lunacy.
Maybe SGT Morgan will win and win big and we will have another shot heard round the world from Massachusetts.
I still have hope for the people of Massachusetts because of a wonderful young man named Brendan Haas.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: brendan haas, discrimination, disney trip, generosity. lies, liberals, Military
Let’s Abolish All ID Requirements
Dec 18, 2011 Political
The criminal gun runner Eric Holder is waging war against states that have enacted voter ID laws. These laws require people to show an ID before they can vote. How dare these states force people to prove they are who they claim to be?
According to Democrat Congressman John Lewis voter ID laws [are]:
…”a deliberate and systematic attempt to prevent millions of elderly voters, young voters, students, minority and low-income voters from exercising their constitutional right to engage in the democratic process. New York Post
Since we require people to show an ID to get on a plane, rent a car, cash a check, buy certain OTC medications, buy controlled prescription drugs, enter a government building, buy alcohol or tobacco, get a driver’s license, receive medical care, open a bank account, buy a firearm, rent a hotel room, and receive government welfare it is logical to extend Lewis’ argument to these items and assert that requiring IDs for these things prevents millions of the young, the elderly, college students (don’t colleges issue a student ID), and minority and low income folks from participating in any of the events I listed. That is but a small list of things that an ID is required for so the list of things that excludes these groups is much bigger.
And our government is aware of the disparity. Since government thinks it is necessary to show an ID for these things but also believes that making people show an ID is a way to prevent some folks from doing things then we can conclude that the government does not want everyone to be able to participate in all facets of society.
Eric Holder, John Lewis and everyone else who thinks that voter ID requirements are designed to disenfranchise people are idiots. There is no other way to put it, they are idiots.
Voter ID does not disenfranchise anyone. Almost everyone has an ID. The college students have college IDs, many have a driver’s license and others have some sort of ID that allowed them to sign up for welfare. You can bet that anyone who receives a government check has some form of ID and does not believe it to be an imposition because they know, no ID, no welfare.
Perhaps the next time I enter a government building and they ask for an ID I should tell them they are discriminating against me. Maybe the next time someone (I look to old for it to be me) buys alcohol and an ID is requested that person should file a lawsuit for discrimination. The state requires those who sell alcohol to ID anyone who buys the product if they look too young.
Why should a person have to prove they are old enough to buy alcohol but not have to prove their identity before they vote?
Because the lack of voter ID helps Democrats and as long as something benefits them they care little about the rule of law.
With Eric Holder this is particularly true. The New Black Panther case and Fast and Furious are prime examples of where they ignored or broke the law in order to advance a liberal cause or protect a liberal demographic.
I support voter ID requirements and if a person is too lazy to get an ID then that person should not be allowed to vote. Can’t afford one? Give up a week’s worth of smokes or forgo the alcohol for a while and save that money for an ID.
Having an ID to vote is as much a national security issue as is requiring an ID to board a plane.
Anyone who opposes ID laws does not care about national security and is opposing freedom and the rule of law.
And they are idiots.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: crimes, discrimination, eric holder, fast and furious, john lewis, voter fraud, voter id laws
Democrats Put Up The Whites Only Sign
Jan 7, 2009 Political
Democrat Harry Reid has refused to allow Roland Burris, the man selected by Governor Blagojevich to fill Obama’s Senate seat, to enter the Capitol. Burris arrived today and was not allowed to enter and therefore was not allowed to swear in. Burris was legally selected to fill the slot but the Democrats do not want to seat anyone selected by Blagojevich.
Perhaps this runs a little deeper. Burris is a black man and Harry Reid is reported to have contacted Blagojevich and told him that the three blacks in consideration for the job (prior to all the pay to play stuff) were not desired and he recommended two non blacks for the position. Once the pay to play scam was exposed Reid said that anyone selected by Blagojevich would be unacceptable. Reid has also stated that Blagojevich is lying about the conversation but I bet that Reid became a little worried when he found out that Blagojevich was being recorded. If Reid did make that call and did say those things, it will be on tape. The down and dirty though, appears to be that Reid and the Democrats do not want to seat a black man.
They were all calling for Franken to be seated and he does not have the paper that Burris is lacking. That did not stop Reid and Schumer from saying that Franken should be immediately seated (even though it would violate Minnesota law). I wonder why two whites were acceptable but none of the three blacks were. I also wonder why Reid will not seat Burris, a black man, without the proper papers but wanted to seat Franken, a white man, who lacks the same paperwork?
It would appear that the racist roots of the Democrats are showing through. The Democrats fought for slavery and against civil rights. The KKK was an arm of the Democrats and Jim Crow laws came from them as well. The Democrats have a long history of racism and now it is showing once again.
Make no mistake, I was against the idea that this seat had to go to a black person. I wrote earlier that the black community was up in arms about possibly losing the black seat when the seat has no color. The person the governor thinks is best qualified (or in Blagojevich’s case has the most money) would get the seat regardless of color. My opposition was to the idea that the seat belonged to the blacks and had to go to a black person.
In the case of Reid it appears that he and the Democrats do not want it to go to a black person at all. As stated, I don’t care what color the person is so long as his color is not the determining criteria.
[note]To be fair, Senator Dianne Feinstein said that Burris should be seated.[/note]
In 2007, Vernon Jordan said that Republicans had a Whites Only sign on their tent. He made this accusation because the leading candidates for president decided to skip a debate at Morgan State University in Baltimore. The school is a black university in Baltimore so it is full of liberal blacks who vote greater than 90% for the Democrat. Couple that with the fact that Obama, a black man, was running and there is no way in hell that the students were going to vote for a Republican, especially a white one. So why waste time debating in front of people who will not vote for you?
I guess if we are to use Jordan’s logic, the Democratic tent in the Senate has a big Whites Only sign on it. Harry Reid and his Democrats denied access to a black man who was duly appointed as a Senator by a governor who had the legal right to do so. They claimed it was a paperwork issue but they were willing to ignore paperwork and let white guy Al Franken in. It is obviously racist and reflects the attitude of the Democrats.
Now that the Democrats have a larger majority there will probably be whites only water fountains and rest rooms and blacks will not be allowed to sit at the lunch counters in the Capital’s cafeteria. Next thing you know Harry Reid is going to have one of those little black jockey lawn ornaments in front of the Capital and I look for Robert Byrd to don his KKK sheets. For some reason blacks seem not to mind this guy even though in 1944 he said:
I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side… Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds. Wikipedia
Harry Reid must have consulted with Byrd before he took a decision on Burris. I guess they will never serve in the Senate with a negro by their side and would rather die a thousand times and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again than to see the Senate degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds…..
Of course, Democrats do not mind seeing Old Glory trampled at any time.
Mr. Burris, good luck to you. I don’t know why you are a Democrat. Look how they are treating you. Now you know in what regard they hold the blacks who vote for them time and time again.
Maybe sir, it is time to get off that plantation.
**Photograph is from the Library of Congress. The website indicates that they are unaware of any restriction on the use of it.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader.[/tip]
Tags: discrimination, jim crow, racism, Reid, robert byrd, roland burris, whites only
Do the Race Baiters Want Obama to Win?
Feb 6, 2008 General
Al Sharpton, the anti Semite, race baiter has certainly endorsed Barack Obama (at least by his actions) and Obama was proud to stand with the man despite his history of racial divisiveness, riots leading to murder and lies. Additionally, Jesse Jackson is supporting Obama. Though Jackson waited, I saw a picture of him with an Obama sign and after Bill Clinton’s jab at him in South Carolina, support for Obama was inevitable.
The question is, do they really want him to win? Sure they are supporting him but that can’t hold much weight. Obama was already doing well with blacks and he is holding his own with some of the white demographics. The presence of Sharpton and Jackson, depending on how involved they get, could hurt him. Maybe that is the plan.
The whole existence of these two involves race baiting. They go around extorting money from companies with trumped up discrimination charges and they have made a fortune by portraying the blacks as victims of the white society. I am not suggesting that racism does not exist because it does and it comes in all colors. Jackson and Sharpton are two huge racists. However, the country is not anywhere near the way they like to portray it and blacks generally have many opportunities. The biggest limit to the success of blacks is their dependence on the Democratic Party, a group that treats them as if they are not capable of making it without government intervention. There are many successful blacks who owe nothing to government programs. Their biggest chance for success came from the two parents they had in their houses, something that is sadly missing from over 50% of black households.
I believe that an Obama presidency would negate many of the arguments that the race baiters make when they decry the racist whites who are oppressing. How can they possibly make a claim that a black person does not get the same chances as a white person if the president is a black man? An Obama presidency would lay to rest many of the bogus arguments they use to extort money and to fatten their personal bank accounts.
America is certainly ready for a black or a woman to be president. We are just not ready for this black or that woman to be president and it has nothing to do with race or sex. It might just be in the best interests of the race baiting poverty pimps to derail Obama before he screws up their scheme.
A loss might actually reinforce their claims and fit better into their agendas, especially if the convention is brokered and Obama is not selected. That would allow the race baiters to claim discrimination and say that America is a racist country where white people keep blacks down.
I would not be surprised if that is not their actual agenda.
Tags: discrimination, jackson, Obama, race baiters, racism, sharpton