It’s not just Arizona.
The state’s controversial bill, which Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed Wednesday, captured national media attention and put prominent Republicans on edge, who worried SB 1062 could have hurt the party. Meanwhile other states have moved toward similar measures within their own borders. A Missouri state senator on Monday introduced legislation like Arizona’s that could provide cover for businesses to deny service to same-sex couples. In Georgia, two versions of a similar bill in the state House and Senate are moving quickly through the Legislature.
In Kansas, a similar bill already passed Republican-led House earlier this month. Other states considering legislation like Arizona’s include Ohio, Mississippi, Idaho, South Dakota, Tennessee and Oklahoma, according to The Associated Press.
While those bills aren’t drawing the national attention of SB 1062, they all aim to accomplish similar goals — giving businesses the ability to refuse service to customers based on religious beliefs….To Read More…..
Also: 10 things to know: Arizona SB 1062
My Take - I
am under the understanding that the NFL is a 501 (C) 6 non-profit! If that's
the case, now that they've taken a political stand on this piece of legislation
to protect the religious rights of Christians – and others - are we to assume
their non-profit status is under scrutiny? If a religious organization came out
on this issue in the same manner the IRS would be all over them. Are the 'all
over' the NFL? No!
A 501 (C) 6 is permitted some
political activity. However, why is the NFL a 501 (C) 6 at all is a mystery to
me. A 501 (C) 6 is supposed to be for Business Leagues, Chambers of Commerce, Real Estate Boards, etc. I find
it a stretch to call the NFL a business league, irrespective of their name
National Football League. The NFL is now a legal monopoly, not a league of
business owners in competition with each other.
One more
thing. This has been depicted as an effort to thwart the rights of those with
unusual sexual orientations. It isn’t! It was an effort to merely stop
homosexuals from forcing those with Christian/Judaic principles from having to
comply with actions they conscientiously find morally wrong based on Biblical
principles.
This issue
isn’t the same as race. This argument is about moral behavior that is condemned
by Biblical teachings. Not some new moral
philosophical flavor of the day, such as we see here, but teachings that have
stood the test of time for thousands of years.
Teachings and principles they are now being forced ignore, thereby violating
their consciences in order to enable conduct they view as immoral, by a government
that’s become openly cowardly, depraved and out of control.
If those
who were sued over refusing to bake a cake for a homosexual twosome were asked
to bake a cake for a multiple marriage group I have no doubt they would have
reacted the same. Where does it stop and why in the world should anyone have to
comply with this madness. Most importantly - why didn’t they just go to another baker! This didn't become an issue until the homosexuals deliberately made it an issue. No one was bothering them and no one was infringing on their rights. The opposite is in fact true.
One more, one more thing! I saw Charles Barkley and his
ilk smearing those who promoted this law.
I saw Lou Dobbs and O'Reilly condemning them on economic issues. Barkley
and his sports myrmidons are a bunch of idiots and O'Reilly and Dobbs are phonies and cowards. At least Barkley has an excuse.
No comments:
Post a Comment