Further Proof the GOP is a Freakshow

Let's see. I said.

Then you replied.

So I replied.

Your reply to this was.

Who's playing semantics here rlm? I wasn't and I wasn't talking about last year was I?

To me you're changing the subject and that is getting old as well. I'm talking about what happened VERY recently.

Now as an honorable mention I'll quote DeOrc.

A bit of unbiased, common sense here. Not tainted by party lines but reality.

So what money is talking?

Perhaps you should read this.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/25/news/economy/arizona-anti-gay-bill/

Here's a few tidbits for you all.

"After business owners lashed out, Arizona's governor vetoed a bill that would have allowed retailers to refuse service to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender customers based on the owners' religious convictions."

"National corporations including American Airlines (AAL), AT&T (ATT ), Delta Airlines (DAL, Fortune 500), Intel (INTC, Fortune 500), Marriott (MAR, Fortune 500), PetSmart (PETM, Fortune 500), Starwood (HOT, Fortune 500) and Yelp (YELP) were among those urging Brewer to veto the bill, saying the law would be bad for the state's reputation and bad for business -- repelling tourists, potential employees and current workers who live in the state."

Is any of this sinking in?


"Meanwhile, Intel, which has nearly 12,000 employees in Arizona, said the bill directly conflicted with its own non-discrimination policy, which "values and welcomes diversity in the workplace."

A local Tucson pizza shop, Rocco's Little Chicago Pizzeria, received national attention for opposing the bill by putting up a sign saying it reserves the right to refuse service to Arizona legislators"

I could go on but read it yourselves.

If big corporations stating what they did isn't "money talking" then please explain what is.

As it turns out Jan Brewer did the right thing in my opinion. I didn't say she took one stinking cent from anyone to make her decision.

Perhaps she saved face and a lot of jobs and tax revenue by analizing the situation when "the money started talking" though.

Seems DeOrc has figured that one out while you haven't rlm.


Money DOES talk folks. Has for a long time.

A no brainer and Jan Brewer was smart enough to realize it.

 

FYI, Clembo, I am not playing semantics. The Arizona legislature passed the same bill last year. Governor Brewer vetoed that bill without any fanfare from either side.

 

I doubt it was the same bill and you have yet to cite it so maybe that was all in your head?

 

A straightforward google search turned up what I think rlm was referring to when he stated that Brewer had vetoed a similar bill in 2013. I'm guessing that he saw a reference to the 2013 bill as a passing comment in a piece on the current bill and was happy to throw it out there although he couldn't be bothered to document it. Or perhaps he was afraid that the documentation didn't exist.

Be that as it may, the bill did not live and die unnoticed but did in fact generate discussion and comment on both sides. According to the articles linked below the bill was initially added as an amendment to a bill already in play before becoming a bill in its own right. It does not appear to have been quite as far reaching as the current bill, but I have not read the whole thing so that's just based on what I've seen.

It was one of five pieces of legislation that brewer vetoed as part of a disagreement Brewer was having with her Republican colleagues over yet another bill, unrelated to gays, which was at the center of the whole fuss.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/polit...igious-protection-measure.html?nclick_check=1

http://www.abc15.com/news/state/gov-jan-brewer-vetoes-5-bills-in-latest-budget-standoff

 

Thanks

 

Here is the real reason for insane legislation like this Arizona piece of garbage...and too bad Jack isn't around to verify this.

This kind of fringe legislation originates from the ranks of the GOP for one purpose. It is to fool the social conservatives into thinking that the GOP cares about their silly obsession with sex rather then the 1% they really care about. The social conservatives take the bait every time. This situation is no different.

 

Although I doubt it was the "same bill" I knew that this was round two so why didn't you just cut to the chase?

As it turns out I think she did the right thing twice myself by vetoing the bill. Perhaps not for the same reasons I would but she did veto.

Good for her. I don't believe she received ONE CENT for her veto. Never did but as for money talking it certainly did in round two.

So why so much more fanfare this time? Money. And it talks. When you have huge corporations that invest in Arizona, are considering investing in Arizona or perhaps investing more In Arizona it is money talking.

Kind of ironic when you get down to it. Politicians in general want to please the "big dogs" in my opinion.
Republicans more so IMHO.

Corporations are "people" after all and when any of those VERY rich people questions your judgement or actions it can be very damaging.

While other states consider similar bills I truly hope corporate jumps in on it again.

It's a demonstration of reality in the long run. Both good and bad depending on one's viewpoint.

 

The answer is very simple - the press.

BTW, ask Solyndra's president who pleases the "big dogs". Ask the Obamacare programmers. Ask Ener1's president.

 

Anyone who has a moral conflict with working for whatever reason, has the option to quit. A business is precisely that, a business, and you provide the services or you don't. Legislation should have nothing to do with it, except in Idaho's case, where Doctors, EMTs, and First Responders can sign an affidavit so we know who's license to revoke. I had a friend, co-worker refuse to work a GOP fundraiser based on moral convictions. I had to work it instead. They insisted on doing something with the drapes that we told them wouldn't work, but they did it anyway. It got hung up mid-show and they had to stop the show to fix it. It was fun to watch, but I digress.........

 

Exactly. If a business is open to the public it's open to the public, not just those particular segments of the public that the business owner personally approves of. This begs the question for me of why you would want to provide income to people who view you with contempt and loathing no matter who good their cakes are but that's a separate issue.