
Twitter.com/GovBrewer
Brewer's office released a photograph of her signing the veto letter.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed SB 1062 on Wednesday, saying it would "create more problems than it purports to solve... Religious liberty is a core American and Arizona value, so is non-discrimination ... I have not heard of one example in Arizona where a business owner’s religious liberty has been violated."... Read more»
Twitter.com/GovBrewer
Brewer's office released a photograph of her signing the veto letter.
I want to help TucsonSentinel.com offer a real news alternative!
We're committed to making quality news accessible; we'll never set up a paywall or charge for our site. But we rely on your support to bring you independent news without the spin. Use our convenient PayPal/credit card donation form below or contact us at donate@tucsonsentinel.com today.
Subscribe and stretch your donation over time:
Or give a secure one-time gift with PayPal or your credit card:
TucsonSentinel.com is an Arizona nonprofit organization. Your contribution is tax-deductible.
Please be respectful and relevant. Thought-provoking. Or at least funny.
We want comments to advance the discussion and we need your help. Debate, disagree, yell (digitally) or laugh, but do it with respect.
We won't censor your comments if we don't agree with you; we want viewpoints from across the political spectrum. We're dedicated to sparking an open, active discussion. We believe people with differing opinions can spark debate and effect change.
Comments are open to registered users of TucsonSentinel.com.
Keep in mind:
TucsonSentinel.com does not allow:
Comments that violate these guidelines may be removed. We reserve the right to make up the rules as we go along.
Commentors are solely responsible for the opinions they express and the accuracy of the information they provide. Users who violate these standards may lose their privileges on TucsonSentinel.com.
Sentinel editors can't read every comment. Trolls, spammers and other troublemakers can slide under the bridge. We rely on you to help maintain a healthy conversation - more than likely, you're reading these comments before the editors.
What if you see something inappropriate? Use the 'Flag' button to send it to a moderation queue. Help us out and tell us why you're reporting it; please don't report someone just because you disagree with them. Boy who cried wolf and all that. We'll take appropriate action on violations.
We will not edit comments to alter their meaning or censor comments because of political content.
We will not remove comments solely because they are heartless, cruel, coarse, foolish or just plain wrong. Your disapproval can maintain a decent signal to noise ratio. Ultimately, however, self-policing is the best method.
Bottom line, don't be a jerk.
4 comments on this story
This is where I stopped reading. I am disappointed. I expected better from the Sentinel. Have you even read the bill? Where in there does it talk about gays, or even discrimination or businesses? Who in the world created this boogeyman?
I didn’t support the bill, but based on the fact that the wording was ambiguous and the change wasn’t necessary. I have no idea why the media wanted to figuratively yell “fire” in a crowded movie theater and create this mass-hysteria…well, other than to boost mouse click and ratings, I mean.
In a way, I’m feeling kid of stupid, like I missed an opportunity. If it is this easy to distort something to greatly and get so many people on-board with your artificially-created hysteria, I’m thinking I could have somehow leveraged it to get Monday Night Football back on ABC where it rightly belongs.
Bret, the bill was justified in the minds of its backers because of anti-discrimination cases in other states involving providing services for gay weddings. Before the uproar, they plainly said that it was written to allow businesses to refuse service to gays if they cited religion. Some legislators who voted for it said during floor debates that business owners should be free to discriminate against not just LGBT people, but any minority they don’t like. After voting for the bill, Steve Pierce said he changed his mind, acknowledging that it would lead to discrimination.
@Dylan Smith
So, you’ve been granted telepathic powers? Or you just prefer to judge based on potential arguments for or against the bill rather than just reading the bill itself and making up your own mind?
Isn’t this the text-book definition of “strawman argument”?
While it is probably true that many of the backers of the bill were themselves “anti-gay”, and the crafters of the bill may very well may have been motivated by being anti-gay, that doesn’t make the bill itself anti-gay. Whether or not the bill itself is anti-gay can only be accurately determined by tuning out all the rhetoric and reading the bill itself, and then judging the anti-gayness of the bill based solely on the words contained therein. If you do all of that…it is just not there. Its just not. Maybe this fact doesn’t make for as interesting of a story…
We can already kick gays out of our business if we so choose here in Arizona…would the energies put into this hysteria have been better spent to change that rather than protesting SB1062?
Bret, Tucson’s had a law barring discrimination based on sexual orientation since 1999. Phoenix and Flagstaff passed such ordinances last year — you’d know that if you read the report.