PDA

View Full Version : NFL might pull 2015 Super Bowl from Arizona


Pony Boy
02-26-2014, 10:45 AM
Arizona Might Lose 2015 Super Bowl Over 'Anti-Gay' Legislation

Call it what you want -- anti-gay or religious rights -- but if Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signs a controversial bill, you might not be calling Arizona the home of the 2015 Super Bowl. The controversial bill would allow businesses to use religious beliefs as a basis for refusing service to gays and others without fear of lawsuits.

The Arizona Super Bowl Host Committee joined the vocal majority and opposed the religious-rights measure and the NFL said it is against discrimination and is closely watching the bill.

But, as with most bills in Congress, the attack ads have little to do with the actual legislation.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/super/2014/02/25/arizona-super-bowl-xlix-religious-rights-legislation-jan-brewer/5810755/

http://washingtonexaminer.com/nfl-could-pull-super-bowl-if-arizona-religious-rights-bill-passes/article/2544606

GreatBronco16
02-26-2014, 10:54 AM
the NFL said it is against discrimination


Well against certain types of discrimination, but yeah.

bronco militia
02-26-2014, 10:55 AM
n***a please

Garcia Bronco
02-26-2014, 10:58 AM
I support the right of the State of Arizona to pass a bill on this subject. I also support the NFL to change their business decisions based on said legislation.

crush17
02-26-2014, 10:58 AM
Meanwhile the NFL has a blatant racial slur for one of it's team names.

crush17
02-26-2014, 10:59 AM
I support the right of the State of Arizona to pass a bill on this subject. I also support the NFL to change their business decisions based on said legislation.


SHOCKER!

B-Large
02-26-2014, 11:00 AM
Arizona Might Lose 2015 Super Bowl Over 'Anti-Gay' Legislation

Call it what you want -- anti-gay or religious rights -- but if Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signs a controversial bill, you might not be calling Arizona the home of the 2015 Super Bowl. The controversial bill would allow businesses to use religious beliefs as a basis for refusing service to gays and others without fear of lawsuits.

The Arizona Super Bowl Host Committee joined the vocal majority and opposed the religious-rights measure and the NFL said it is against discrimination and is closely watching the bill.

But, as with most bills in Congress, the attack ads have little to do with the actual legislation.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/super/2014/02/25/arizona-super-bowl-xlix-religious-rights-legislation-jan-brewer/5810755/

http://washingtonexaminer.com/nfl-could-pull-super-bowl-if-arizona-religious-rights-bill-passes/article/2544606


Meh, they gays can come to Colorado- we love them here.

Arkie
02-26-2014, 11:02 AM
I've already made reservations. :(

B-Large
02-26-2014, 11:03 AM
What cake maker in their right mind would refuse to make Wedding Cakes for Gays? the wedding budgets have to be mind boggling.

Drunken.Broncoholic2
02-26-2014, 11:05 AM
Meh, they gays can come to Colorado- we love them here.

That would make it Calirado.

B-Large
02-26-2014, 11:05 AM
So if the State of Arizona also passed a law allowing/protecting Sharia Law, I assume all the religious freedom protectors would be supprting that as well?

rmsanger
02-26-2014, 11:06 AM
christ this country is turning into 1 soft fat titty

ColoradoDarin
02-26-2014, 11:07 AM
I've already made reservations. :(

That's racist.

Pony Boy
02-26-2014, 11:08 AM
The Ginger Hammer should get the Nobel Peace Prize.

ColoradoDarin
02-26-2014, 11:10 AM
So if the State of Arizona also passed a law allowing/protecting Sharia Law, I assume all the religious freedom protectors would be supprting that as well?

Look at you, only 7 years behind the times (http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=2827800)!

Drunken.Broncoholic2
02-26-2014, 11:12 AM
Look at you, only 7 years behind the times (http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=2827800)!

Ha! It's ok for them.

ludo21
02-26-2014, 11:12 AM
This is all the radio is talking about here. Eastvalleytribune.com writer posted an excellent article about what 1062 actually is supporting.

A business owner should not be sued for refusing to serve people (Alien, homeless, dirty, whatever...)

ATL-Eric
02-26-2014, 11:14 AM
Which ever states pass this should go to the top of all lists of "States with Most Closeted Homosexuals"

B-Large
02-26-2014, 11:15 AM
Look at you, only 7 years behind the times (http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=2827800)!

I didn't state I was against free association

Drunken.Broncoholic2
02-26-2014, 11:16 AM
People wearing no shirts will start to protest now too

The fellas wearing no shoes are already forming sneaker free demonstrations.

Spicoli is ready.


Learn it. Live it. Love it.

IndelibleScribe
02-26-2014, 11:19 AM
That law is so stupid. Are they going to refuse service to people who cheat on their spouse too?
Some people are worried about the wrong damn thing.

Drunken.Broncoholic2
02-26-2014, 11:22 AM
That law is so stupid. Are they going to refuse service to people who cheat on their spouse too?
Some people are worried about the wrong damn thing.

They could. From what I remember the right to refuse "anyone" has been hanging in thousands upon thousands of businesses across America.

B-Large
02-26-2014, 11:24 AM
That law is so stupid. Are they going to refuse service to people who cheat on their spouse too?
Some people are worried about the wrong damn thing.

from my understanding it is litigation bill more than anything.

If I'm a cake maker, I sure hope my competition is highly principled Christians. Please god!

Garcia Bronco
02-26-2014, 11:26 AM
I've already made reservations. :(

That's the other thing the NFL has to consider....if they cancel any contracts...they might have to get their wallet out.

Garcia Bronco
02-26-2014, 11:27 AM
from my understanding it is litigation bill more than anything.

If I'm a cake maker, I sure hope my competition is highly principled Christians. Please god!

A business should have the right to refuse service to anyone. In essense this topic is about the NFL doing exactly that. It's implied that they want to refuse service to the State of Arizona.

B-Large
02-26-2014, 11:30 AM
A business should have the right to refuse service to anyone. In essense this topic is about the NFL doing exactly that. It's implied that they want to refuse service to the State of Arizona.

but they will get destroyed in the court of public opinion... I guess that is what makes this country great, good choices and bad choices.

B-Large
02-26-2014, 11:31 AM
Sochi, Arizona?

Yeah, but there are no gay sin Sochi- the mayor said so.

IndelibleScribe
02-26-2014, 11:31 AM
They could. From what I remember the right to refuse "anyone" has been hanging in thousands upon thousands of businesses across America.

I know it has, my point was this.
You're going to make a bill where you can refuse service to a gay person without fear of legal reprisal. The basis of which is that it is a mortal sin to be gay and as such is within their rights to refuse service as it offends their religious beliefs.

People do far worse **** than simply being gay and people do not refuse service to them.
It is completely ignorant to even bring up such a law. It is pure discrimination.
But hey, if it is put into law then they have the right exercise it.

bronco militia
02-26-2014, 11:31 AM
Yeah, but there are no gay sin Sochi- the mayor said so.

yeah, just don't touch the kids.

B-Large
02-26-2014, 11:37 AM
I know it has, my point was this.
You're going to make a bill where you can refuse service to a gay person without fear of legal reprisal. The basis of which is that it is a mortal sin to be gay and as such is within their rights to refuse service as it offends their religious beliefs.

People do far worse **** than simply being gay and people do not refuse service to them.
It is completely ignorant to even bring up such a law. It is pure discrimination.
But hey, if it is put into law then they have the right exercise it.

I think it was the Wedding Cake specifically the owner had the issue with... the two grooms on the top or some **** like that....

I don't think the owner took offense with making a regular cake for the gays, or anybody in that matter...

Its still bigoted IMO, but there are thousands of cake shops who would be glad to make a cake for people no matter who they legally marry. Who wants to buy a wedding cake from a small minded religious bigot? I sure don't, my friends don't and millenials sure are not polling toward more religiuosly dogmatic.

Drunken.Broncoholic2
02-26-2014, 11:37 AM
I know it has, my point was this.
You're going to make a bill where you can refuse service to a gay person without fear of legal reprisal. The basis of which is that it is a mortal sin to be gay and as such is within their rights to refuse service as it offends their religious beliefs.

People do far worse **** than simply being gay and people do not refuse service to them.
It is completely ignorant to even bring up such a law. It is pure discrimination.
But hey, if it is put into law then they have the right exercise it.

You're right it shouldn't have to be law. A private business should be able to refuse to anyone they wish. Wearing no shoes or a shirt is certainly not evil. Yet try it at a restaurant and they kick you out. Wearing a baseball cap can get you thrown out of places. Bars don't like baggy pants? No entrance. Point is a business should have the right to refuse without repurcussions or a law behind them.

BroncoMan4ever
02-26-2014, 11:37 AM
That would make it Calirado.

i live in Denver. it already is Calirado.

Drunken.Broncoholic2
02-26-2014, 11:39 AM
i live in Denver. it already is Calirado.

I kinda figured that when they started pulling welfare cash out of machines in pot shops. Just like good ole golden state.

enjolras
02-26-2014, 11:46 AM
You're right it shouldn't have to be law. A private business should be able to refuse to anyone they wish. Wearing no shoes or a shirt is certainly not evil. Yet try it at a restaurant and they kick you out. Wearing a baseball cap can get you thrown out of places. Bars don't like baggy pants? No entrance. Point is a business should have the right to refuse without repurcussions or a law behind them.

In a perfect world. One only needs to look at the Jim Crow south to understand that this simply doesn't work. We, as a people (through our government) have to protect the rights of our fellow citizens to participate in society.

Drunken.Broncoholic2
02-26-2014, 11:48 AM
In a perfect world. One only needs to look at the Jim Crow south to understand that this simply doesn't work. We, as a people (through our government) have to protect the rights of our fellow citizens to participate in society.

From what I remember federal law prevents it from refusing for race, color, national origin, religion. They will have to add who you sleep with to this list to prevent this kind of confusion. A couple states have it(Cali) as state law but that's it. Religious and non profits are exempt from it but not private businesses.


Personally it's not good business sense. If you refuse service to a very tiny percent of your clientele you're gonna leave a bad taste for the rest of it.

Drunken.Broncoholic2
02-26-2014, 11:56 AM
Primary Dimersions of Diversity:

Age
Gender
Race
Sexual Orientation
Physical Qualities
Ethnicities

Title II of the civil rights act doesn't mention all of those.

http://civilrights.findlaw.com/enforcing-your-civil-rights/title-ii-of-the-civil-rights-act-of-1964-injunctive-relief.html

Regardless of whether SB 1062 passes in Arizona, private business owners can still legally refuse to serve gays and lesbians under state law, barring a local law that may say otherwise.


Most are opposing it and I'm pretty sure brewer will veto it.

DomCasual
02-26-2014, 11:56 AM
This is all the radio is talking about here. Eastvalleytribune.com writer posted an excellent article about what 1062 actually is supporting.

A business owner should not be sued for refusing to serve people (Alien, homeless, dirty, whatever...)

THAT'S RACIST!

http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/ALIEN-FACE.jpg

IndelibleScribe
02-26-2014, 12:00 PM
You're right it shouldn't have to be law. A private business should be able to refuse to anyone they wish. Wearing no shoes or a shirt is certainly not evil. Yet try it at a restaurant and they kick you out. Wearing a baseball cap can get you thrown out of places. Bars don't like baggy pants? No entrance. Point is a business should have the right to refuse without repurcussions or a law behind them.

Except one big difference.
The no shoes no shirt is a health thing. Wearing a baseball cap can hide your facial features and potentially make it hard to find you should you commit a crime.
Baggy pants tend to lead to having them hang off of your ass and either showing butt crack or underwear.

Being gay is not the same thing.

Drunken.Broncoholic2
02-26-2014, 12:05 PM
Except one big difference.
The no shoes no shirt is a health thing. Wearing a baseball cap can hide your facial features and potentially make it hard to find you should you commit a crime.
Baggy pants tend to lead to having them hang off of your ass and either showing butt crack or underwear.

Being gay is not the same thing.


A restaurant refuses hats because it's bad taste to wear one when eating. Fail to see the health risk there. And don't see it being an issue of hiding a face. Upscale restaurants do it for etiquette.

Being gay affects the owners who take their faith seriously. Whether we like it or not.

Pony Boy
02-26-2014, 12:06 PM
In a perfect world. One only needs to look at the Jim Crow south to understand that this simply doesn't work. We, as a people (through our government) have to protect the rights of our fellow citizens to participate in society.

In a perfect world. One only needs to look at the Jim Crow south to understand that this simply doesn't work. We, as a people (through our NFL) have to protect the rights of our fellow citizens to participate in society.

Fixed it for ya ......

Rohirrim
02-26-2014, 12:11 PM
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Ed1APDoErv8/S_-p9o_SYiI/AAAAAAAAAXs/_LuU3R7GtNg/s400/Colored%2520Only.jpg

Durango
02-26-2014, 12:11 PM
It's just political theatre anyway. A law discriminating on the basis of religious beliefs flys in the face of the 1st Amendment. It would never survive a Supreme Court challenge.

Drunken.Broncoholic2
02-26-2014, 12:13 PM
What about people getting deals? Women get in free yet men pay, sex discrimination? A senior citizen getting a discount on the same meal I ate yet I'm discriminated and pay full price because of my age? These are private business preferences and certainly legal.

GreatBronco16
02-26-2014, 12:14 PM
Except one big difference.
The no shoes no shirt is a health thing. Wearing a baseball cap can hide your facial features and potentially make it hard to find you should you commit a crime.
Baggy pants tend to lead to having them hang off of your ass and either showing butt crack or underwear.

Being gay is not the same thing.

Being gay 'might' mean that someone dresses in drag which would make it hard to find you if you should commit a crime. You know, after you changed back to your regular self.;D

Drunken.Broncoholic2
02-26-2014, 12:16 PM
Yeah I'm using it to show there's still a lot of progress to be made.

IMO, at least.

I wouldn't mind age or sex be thrown in. Tired of paying cover charges when women get off Scott free.

GreatBronco16
02-26-2014, 12:19 PM
I wouldn't mind age or sex be thrown in. Tired of paying cover charges when women get off Scott free.


Hey, I like not having to pay a cover charge for my bltch at da club. You can just go find a bar without a cover charge.:giggle:

Drunken.Broncoholic2
02-26-2014, 12:24 PM
Hey, I like not having to pay a cover charge for my bltch at da club. You can just go find a bar without a cover charge.:giggle:

You're doing it wrong. You're not supposed to bring the significant other to the club!

Pony Boy
02-26-2014, 12:24 PM
Maybe it's just me but I don't think I would want to eat a meal at a restaurant where the cook hated my guts.

BroncoSojia
02-26-2014, 12:25 PM
A restaurant refuses hats because it's bad taste to wear one when eating. Fail to see the health risk there. And don't see it being an issue of hiding a face. Upscale restaurants do it for etiquette.

Being gay affects the owners who take their faith seriously. Whether we like it or not.

What about Muslims, unwed mothers, people who have sex outside of marriage, atheists, people who wear mixed brands of fiber, etc?

Are we going to start passing laws on anything that make Christians uncomfortable?

There are a lot of things that should "affect" Christians but for some reason the focus is always on LGBTs

peacepipe
02-26-2014, 12:26 PM
I support the right of the State of Arizona to pass a bill on this subject. I also support the NFL to change their business decisions based on said legislation.

So you would support discrimination against Christians if a Muslim store owner denied them service cause of "religious beliefs".

Broncojef
02-26-2014, 12:46 PM
So you would support discrimination against Christians if a Muslim store owner denied them service cause of "religious beliefs".

It's not discrimination. If the idiot store didn't want to serve me I'd go somewhere my money was wanted. People need to get some thicker skin and stop worrying about every damn thing that happens to them. If enough people hate their stores stance they'll go outta business. Love capitalism.

Drunken.Broncoholic2
02-26-2014, 12:49 PM
What about Muslims, unwed mothers, people who have sex outside of marriage, atheists, people who wear mixed brands of fiber, etc?

Are we going to start passing laws on anything that make Christians uncomfortable?

There are a lot of things that should "affect" Christians but for some reason the focus is always on LGBTs

I'm pretty sure Christians are getting blasted left and right from everyone you mentioned. They put up a manger on their lawn it's mayhem.

Drunken.Broncoholic2
02-26-2014, 12:50 PM
So you would support discrimination against Christians if a Muslim store owner denied them service cause of "religious beliefs".

Muslim cab drivers refuse to drive Christians in SF. Seen it firsthand. What happens? The Christian just waves down another cab.


If you are Christian id be careful shopping at Mark and Spencer's too.


I would say under this bill you would see a rise in Muslim store owners refusing service more just like a Christian owned store. Would cause wide ranging discriminations not just at the hands of Christians.

GreatBronco16
02-26-2014, 12:50 PM
You're doing it wrong. You're not supposed to bring the significant other to the club!


I'm married so I have to bring her. Ha!

GreatBronco16
02-26-2014, 12:52 PM
Muslim cab drivers refuse to drive Christians in SF. Seen it firsthand. What happens? The Christian just waves down another cab.

That doesn't make the news, so it doesn't matter.

Drunken.Broncoholic2
02-26-2014, 01:03 PM
That doesn't make the news, so it doesn't matter.

NY it did. Was a backlash there

enjolras
02-26-2014, 01:08 PM
Muslim cab drivers refuse to drive Christians in SF. Seen it firsthand. What happens? The Christian just waves down another cab.

Now what happens when all of the cabs do it? This isn't an issue in big cities, but it sure as hell is one outside of them. I've lived long enough to see an actual cross burned in someones yard who made the mistake of moving to a small town as a minority (Arkansas, 1994). They left as soon as they could find another job.

When you allow blanket discrimination you run the very real risk of ending up with towns that simply won't serve people in the LGBT community. Or people of color. Or people of whatever the hell small town rednecks are scared of today.

It's not hard to imagine, in a small little town on the edge of the Arizona desert, someone being denied gas or food when no other restaurant or gas station exists for 50 miles or more.

I get why people are uncomfortable. I don't like the government telling me what to do any more than they do. I like bigots making turning my fellow citizens into outcasts even less.

Drunken.Broncoholic2
02-26-2014, 01:15 PM
Now what happens when all of the cabs do it? This isn't an issue in big cities, but it sure as hell is one outside of them. I've lived long enough to see an actual cross burned in someones yard who made the mistake of moving to a small town as a minority (Arkansas, 1994). They left as soon as they could find another job.

When you allow blanket discrimination you run the very real risk of ending up with towns that simply won't serve people in the LGBT community. Or people of color. Or people of whatever the hell small town rednecks are scared of today.

It's not hard to imagine, in a small little town on the edge of the Arizona desert, someone being denied gas or food when no other restaurant or gas station exists for 50 miles or more.

I get why people are uncomfortable. I don't like the government telling me what to do any more than they do. I like bigots making turning my fellow citizens into outcasts even less.


All businesses aren't run by people of religious faith. So not all cab companies would do it. As far as the example you gave, unless they are flaunting a rainbow or parading as such, how exactly would the gas store clerk know a persons gay?

enjolras
02-26-2014, 01:17 PM
All businesses aren't run by people of religious faith.

There are small towns all over the country where this isn't likely the case. There are definitely towns where, given the freedom to discriminate, owners would be under intense pressure to participate.

You have to ignore a whole bunch of recent history to think that statement isn't true.

As far as the example you gave, unless they are flaunting a rainbow or parading as such, how exactly would the gas store clerk know a persons gay?

Rainbow sticker on a car? Acting or dressing a certain way? Who cares how they arrived at it?

Drunken.Broncoholic2
02-26-2014, 01:18 PM
Rainbow sticker on a car? Acting or dressing a certain way? Who cares how they arrived at it?

That's why this law isn't going to go through. But it can go both ways. I've walked in the Castro district with my gf shopping and have been harassed cause im straight. Been told to go shop in Union Square instead of there. I didnt flip out I just shrugged it off.

Johnykbr
02-26-2014, 01:37 PM
Either you legislate to deny service to anyone and suffer the consequences or you legislate to provide service to everyone and suffer the consequences. It is inevitable that every single thing will eventually be challenged in the courts.

As far as the NFL. Sure, yank the Superbowl but lose tax exempt status and they should have to pay a penalty for exiting a contract just like any other person/business.

Pony Boy
02-26-2014, 01:52 PM
All businesses aren't run by people of religious faith. So not all cab companies would do it. As far as the example you gave, unless they are flaunting a rainbow or parading as such, how exactly would the gas store clerk know a persons gay?

"Gaydar," the ability to detect sexual orientation as if through radar, is real. And some people can guess with 80 percent accuracy, according to a new study.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/05/16/study-finds-gaydar-up-to-80-percent-accurate-on-sexuality

peacepipe
02-26-2014, 01:53 PM
It's not discrimination. If the idiot store didn't want to serve me I'd go somewhere my money was wanted. People need to get some thicker skin and stop worrying about every damn thing that happens to them. If enough people hate their stores stance they'll go outta business. Love capitalism.

It is discrimination,you idiot.

peacepipe
02-26-2014, 01:54 PM
I'm pretty sure Christians are getting blasted left and right from everyone you mentioned. They put up a manger on their lawn it's mayhem.

Christians have quite a large persecution complex.

peacepipe
02-26-2014, 01:56 PM
Muslim cab drivers refuse to drive Christians in SF. Seen it firsthand. What happens? The Christian just waves down another cab.


If you are Christian id be careful shopping at Mark and Spencer's too.


I would say under this bill you would see a rise in Muslim store owners refusing service more just like a Christian owned store. Would cause wide ranging discriminations not just at the hands of Christians.
None of which is OK,which is another reason not to be law.

peacepipe
02-26-2014, 02:19 PM
BTW, am I the only one waiting to see RWers in Texas go crazy over the court ruling its same sex marriage ban unconstitutional.

Pony Boy
02-26-2014, 02:25 PM
BTW, am I the only one waiting to see RWers in Texas go crazy over the court ruling its same sex marriage ban unconstitutional.

JFC ......... someone has his panties in a wad......:rofl:

BroncoSojia
02-26-2014, 02:44 PM
Christians have quite a large persecution complex.

which is pretty ironic when you think about it.

Mountain Bronco
02-26-2014, 03:05 PM
This is all the radio is talking about here. Eastvalleytribune.com writer posted an excellent article about what 1062 actually is supporting.

A business owner should not be sued for refusing to serve people (Alien, homeless, dirty, whatever...)

So they should be able to refuse service based on race then? Sounds cool huh, like 1920's Mississippi?

****ing rednecks.

GreatBronco16
02-26-2014, 08:08 PM
So they should be able to refuse service based on race then? Sounds cool huh, like 1920's Mississippi?

****ing rednecks.

They should be able to refuse service to 'Anyone' they damn please. They don't have to tell them why they are refusing to serve them.

Archer81
02-26-2014, 08:14 PM
Private businesses should be able to serve who they like. Fortunately, I can buy what I need from other places.

Works both ways.

:Broncos:

Jetmeck
02-26-2014, 08:19 PM
Gov. Brewer made the right choice tonight and denied this discriminatory legislation wrapped in religion...............christians killed people in the name of religion as well..............wanna do that again ?

Sad thing is she vetoed it because of all the political and financial backlash about to slap the stupid ass sideways..............its just plain wrong but she didn't veto it for that reason.

Second sad thing is smart people learn their lessons.....Arizona refused to implement Martin Luther King day as a holiday and the NFL yanked the SB away from them back then...............stupid ****ing people repeat their mistakes.

Bottom line is she did the right thing for the wrong reasons...........

Vegas_Bronco
02-26-2014, 08:24 PM
I turn down a holes all the time in my business...don't care if you have money. It's my risk assessment of the customer that determines who I do business with. No one should be sued for refusal of service.

Mogulseeker
02-26-2014, 08:27 PM
It's a two-way street:

Arizona has a right to pass a bill like this...

The NFL has the right to screw over Arizona because of it...

This is the bill that was vetoed, right?

Cito Pelon
02-26-2014, 09:03 PM
i live in Denver. it already is Calirado.

Nah, that's Boulder. Maybe Evergreen also. Denver, we still put sofas in the alley for the trash man . . . .

Miss I.
02-26-2014, 09:23 PM
It's a two-way street:

Arizona has a right to pass a bill like this...

The NFL has the right to screw over Arizona because of it...

This is the bill that was vetoed, right?

Yes the governor vetoed it today. A minor victory given how assbackwards arizona now looks.. they already had issues with racial profiling and the fiasco with the MLK holiday years ago I've never forgotten There are some real dumbasses in the state senate. No wonder nobody takes Arizona seriously. It seems my home state can now be known as racist, gun toting survivaliist homophobic rednecks. sigh...seriously stupid unneccesary law. denial of service was and always is a right. And nobody has a right to be protected from law suits. If you chose to refuse service you take that risk but in all likelihood a court will thorw it out and in fact when asked, the senators supporting the bill could not cite one single case of anyone being sued over refusal to serve.

Archer81
02-26-2014, 11:13 PM
Couple this with the idiot who wants to ban gay players from the NFL and you have your 2014 bagofdicks front runners.


:Broncos:

cutthemdown
02-26-2014, 11:47 PM
Good job by the gov taking a stand for personal choice and freedom. Ropesuckers should be able to go and do whatever they want.

rafterstarr
02-27-2014, 04:59 AM
christ this country is turning into 1 soft fat titty

This!

ColoradoDarin
02-27-2014, 07:09 AM
Yes the governor vetoed it today. A minor victory given how assbackwards arizona now looks.. they already had issues with racial profiling and the fiasco with the MLK holiday years ago I've never forgotten There are some real dumbasses in the state senate. No wonder nobody takes Arizona seriously. It seems my home state can now be known as racist, gun toting survivaliist homophobic rednecks. sigh...seriously stupid unneccesary law. denial of service was and always is a right. And nobody has a right to be protected from law suits. If you chose to refuse service you take that risk but in all likelihood a court will thorw it out and in fact when asked, the senators supporting the bill could not cite one single case of anyone being sued over refusal to serve.

Probably because AZ already passed a RFA in 1999, this bill was meant to refine that, so they didn't want to cite out of state cases like the one in Oregon (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/01/21/christian-bakery-guilty-violating-civil-rights-lesbian-couple/) (BTW - OR has banned same sex marriage) or New Mexico (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/08/22/New-Mexico-Court-Christian-Photographer-Cannot-Refuse-Gay-Marriage-Ceremony-Next-Stop-U-S-Supreme-Court) (NM has banned same sex marriage as well).

Br0nc0Buster
02-27-2014, 07:43 AM
This!

lol this guy registered in 2006 so 8 years later he could say "This!"

bases055
02-27-2014, 07:56 AM
lol this guy registered in 2006 so 8 years later he could say "This!"

This!






Haha even I can laugh about that.

BroncoSojia
02-27-2014, 08:10 AM
Good job by the gov taking a stand for personal choice and freedom. Ropesuckers should be able to go and do whatever they want.

This remind me of the "almost politically correct redneck" meme.

DHallblows
02-27-2014, 09:19 AM
This remind me of the "almost politically correct redneck" meme.

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/cf/cf377a69fca8c221731f98cc9926475f527413dc50c3cecce5 20819a4ac2ea52.jpg

BroncoSojia
02-27-2014, 09:22 AM
http://www.quickmeme.com/img/cf/cf377a69fca8c221731f98cc9926475f527413dc50c3cecce5 20819a4ac2ea52.jpg

yeah that's it LOL

Pony Boy
02-27-2014, 09:37 AM
Probably a backroom deal to resubmit the bill after the Super Bowl.