Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

by
Bridget Johnson

Bio

February 25, 2014 - 8:16 am

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said he hopes Gov. Jan Brewer will veto a law that would allow businesses to deny services based on religious grounds, such as a baker refusing to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.

McCain told CNN this morning that “unfortunately, it hurts the image of our state just as a couple of years ago our other law SB 1070″ — an anti-illegal immigration law that was partially overturned by the Supreme Court.

“It’s not an accident that our Arizona Chamber of Commerce and our business leaders came out with a very strong message yesterday that they don’t want the governor to sign this,” the senator said.

The Chamber sent a letter to Brewer asking her to veto the bill. “After analyzing the bill, we are very concerned about the effect it could have on Arizona’s economy. As leaders in the business community, we cannot support measures that could expose our businesses to litigation, nor do we want to send a message that our state is anything but an open and attractive place for visitors and the top talent that will be the cornerstone of our continued economic growth,” the Chamber said. “If specific Arizona issues related to religious liberty are identified, we would stand ready to work with anyone to ensure that any solution addresses those problems while also ensuring that all individuals feel welcome in our state and that business is not hurt.”

The Greater Phoenix Economic Council warned Brewer in a letter that “this legislation has the potential of subjecting the Super Bowl, and major events surrounding it, to the threats of boycotts.”

McCain said the bill “is going to hurt the state of Arizona’s economy, and frankly, our image.”

“So, I hope that the governor of Arizona will veto this and we move on. Arizona is the most beautiful state in America. And it’s not helpful when we see this kind of controversy,” he said, adding that he’d not had a direct conversation with Brewer about the bill.

The governor has until Friday to decide whether to veto or sign it. “I have to look at what it says and what the law says and take that information and do the right thing,” she told CNN.

“I don’t know of a necessity for it. I believe that Arizona is a wonderful state. We welcome all people of all persuasions,” McCain said. “We’re proud of our state. And so, this is not the message we want to send. I hope the governor will veto it and we will move on and advertise the great beauty of our state.”

Arizona’s other senator, Republican Jeff Flake, made his views known via Twitter:

 

UPDATE: Another Republican has added his opinion to the mix…

 

Bridget Johnson is a veteran journalist whose news articles and opinion columns have run in dozens of news outlets across the globe. Bridget first came to Washington to be online editor at The Hill, where she wrote The World from The Hill column on foreign policy. Previously she was an opinion writer and editorial board member at the Rocky Mountain News and nation/world news columnist at the Los Angeles Daily News. She is an NPR contributor and has contributed to USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, Politico and more, and has myriad television and radio credits as a commentator. Bridget is Washington Editor for PJ Media.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
You know, I just have to wonder. If you were to FORCE someone to bake you a cake...

...Would your really want to eat that cake?
29 weeks ago
29 weeks ago Link To Comment
No, we certainly can't have freedom of religion or association in this country.
We absolutely must force people to participate in commerce, even if that violates their religious beliefs. Because, after all, getting a cake from a particular baker is a basic human right, and the rights of a customer not to have his feelings hurt by cruel rejection are so much more important than the permission we normally give the shop keeper to follow his antiquated mythology.
That is what the Revolution was all about: Butter cream goodness from Mr. Johnson. That is what Rev. King died for: A magnificent wedding bouquet from Mrs. Smith.
29 weeks ago
29 weeks ago Link To Comment
Oh how I wish this all started with a Muslim baker/catererer/photographer instead of Christian. Let's insert Muslim, Islam and Muhammad in every instance where Christian, Christianity and Jesus Christ is mentioned with regards to this bill. Would the passion for this bill to be veteod be the same? Or would the thought of having your head sawed off have anything to do with it?
29 weeks ago
29 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (65)
All Comments   (65)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Today its bakers, florists, and photographers.

Tomorrow its priests, pasters, and rabbis.
29 weeks ago
29 weeks ago Link To Comment
People continue to get confused by this. It's not about the cake or refusal of service. It's about the message.

In a free society, someone should not be forced to promote a message they disagree with. The baker or the wedding photographer should not be forced to bow down before the state and affirm a form of marriage they believe is not right which is what they would be forced to do by memorializing the ceremony. Both of these professions have elements of speech to them which are not present in something like a grocery store.

The fact that McCain, Romney and the GOP insiders are trying to be pragmatic and won't support the deeper freedom issue is the reason why they will (deservedly) get tepid support from the base.
29 weeks ago
29 weeks ago Link To Comment
Just what we need, another place McCain wants to bomb!
29 weeks ago
29 weeks ago Link To Comment
So let me understand this. People, Progressives, mainly like Janet Napolitano were once against gay marriage when it wasn’t a politically correct issue way back when. And the issue itself hasn’t changed at all. It is just suddenly Hollywood and the University tells you it is now the new normal so therefore it is. Because a long time ago it was common sense. But once a new normal is established all fall in line with the party chant stemming from the anti reasoned cult that the Progressive resides in.

Marriage should be between a man and a woman. It’s common sense. The homosexual lifestyle is deviant. It is not natural, not normal and the idea of being a legitimate marriage is immoral. I’m not judging them although I know the remark is hurtful. Sorry but it is what it is. It is well out of the natural order of what would be stability in natural society. As would plural marriage be. I wonder if people like Napolitano are against plural marriage? How about you, Mr. Progressive? Of course you are. No one has told you it is the hot topic of political correctness yet. When they do you will immediately switch your views and announce it is the new normal and how they have equality rights and all the other usual litany that falls into the realm of anti reason.

Americans aren’t for gay marriage. Why do I know this? I see Americans falling into lock step march over many “new normals” that they inherently know are not. Example? One is accepting Spanish being spoken here. English is the correct language. But the Progressive has called you a racist for saying so now out loud. So you remain silent. So the Progressive states that most are ok with speaking Spanish in the United States. Because most of you are too afraid to say out loud otherwise. That tactic was used long ago—repeating an insanity until it was accepted as truth. Until no one dared say otherwise what they knew was anti reason. The result? The Third Reich.

And today you’re telling me most Americans are fine with gay marriage and gay adoption and transgender rights and all the other anti reason you come up with. You wonder why we say the Progressive has a mental disorder? Check your talking points. The illegal alien isn’t really illegal right? And gay marriage is the new normal.

And what has acceptance of all gotten us? Regular school shootings. College campus shootings. Seven year olds trying out oral sex when the teacher leaves the room for fifteen minutes. The Knock Out Game. The Jersey Shore. Your agenda is working out just fine with the newly programmed youth isn’t it Mr. Progressive? Because all the values held by the above came from us right wing nutcase conservatives right? You know like God, absolute morals and the fact that marriage is between a man and a woman. We are way off, I know.

So when my fiction becomes a reality which it will, as history states it must when we hold a system of amorality remember, Mr. Progressive. Remember when it collapses as it is doing right now before your eyes that you were the one responsible for it.

Charles Hurst. Author of THE SECOND FALL. An offbeat story of Armageddon. And creator of THE RUNNINGWOLF EZINE

29 weeks ago
29 weeks ago Link To Comment
Look on the bright side: In the Zohar it says that the Messiah will not come (again, for all you Christians out there!) until marriage contracts are written between men. ANY DAY NOW!
29 weeks ago
29 weeks ago Link To Comment
Now that I have read up a little bit, time to make a more serious (still a bit snarky, though) post.

1. This all came about because a Colorado judge, Robert N. Spencer, ordered a baker to serve a wedding cake to a homosexual couple or face a fine.

2. Arizona legislators thought it was a good idea to pass a law that allows people to refuse services on the grounds of religious freedom.

Now, I'm not in favor of passing any law hastily, for example the Patriot Act. The judge made his ruling in December, the baker appealed in January. Let's wait to see if this stands before pulling out our hair and gnashing our teeth.

That said, the opponents of the bill are making a vulgar assumption that Arizonan businesses are just waiting for the excuse to ban homosexuals; because all Arizonans are bigots, right? Give me a break. When I lived in Phoenix I spent time working the night shift in a 24hr grocery store. If I had refused to allow two men wearing leather chaps from purchasing condoms and Vaseline (true story), I would have been fired. Most businesses want something called "profit." To get this mysterious "profit" businesses sell goods or services to people. If you refuse to sell goods or services to people, you don't make as much "profit."

So, in my opinion the Arizonan lawmakers rushed this issue when they should have just watched to see the final outcome. If it went all the way to the Colorado supreme court and was upheld, then I would have recommended writing up a law. For the people out there (chamber of commerce, NFL, McCain, Flake, Romney) that assume the worst of Arizonans, I'll repeat what I said in my first post. Pound Sand.
29 weeks ago
29 weeks ago Link To Comment
So just what is the "compelling government interest" in denying a baker the freedom to refuse to bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding, and then stripping him of his business and livelihood, anyway?

We'll never know, because a court in New Mexico found a loophole in the existing law that would otherwise require it to ask the question.

That's why the SB 1062 is needed, necessary, and the right thing to do.
29 weeks ago
29 weeks ago Link To Comment
The baker and wedding photographer are not saying "Hey you look gay, get out." They are saying we should have the freedom NOT to memorialize (promote, affirm, participate in) your gay wedding. Freedom of speech means the freedom NOT to promote a message with which you disagree.
29 weeks ago
29 weeks ago Link To Comment
So, it's wrong to pass an Arizona law allowing you to refuse to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple because of religious scruples, but it's okay for the state of California to ban the consumption of horse meat tacos and thus discriminating against the tastes of the Hispanic population because secular Hollywood celebrities find eating horse meat ethically distasteful. And foie gras is banned in California because of its cruel force feeding of geese, but it's okay to import foie gra made the old fashion cruel way and eat it in the the upscale humanistic neighborhoods of Pacific Heights. Personally, I say eat dog, the Chinese and Koreans and Vietnamese do, and cats too, so it can't be all that bad, although it can be stringy. All stores that provide meat and poultry and fish should be required to provide dog, cat, and monkey meat in the interest of food equality for all with a special section for sun dried road kill jerky as long as it's properly irradiated. What's good for the religious is good for the humanist.
29 weeks ago
29 weeks ago Link To Comment
.
29 weeks ago
29 weeks ago Link To Comment
Here is the actual text of the bill:

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062p.pdf

Any normal person reading it would say that it is a very reasonable bill. All the ranting comes from those who have either not read the bill or are not normal. Which are you, Senator McCain?
29 weeks ago
29 weeks ago Link To Comment
This bill is a simple rejection of Bullying.
29 weeks ago
29 weeks ago Link To Comment
I think McCain is right. I mean after all, look how much damage was done to Chick-fil-A over its stance on SSM...
29 weeks ago
29 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 Next View All