Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer: 'I've Got Plenty of Time' to Decide on Anti-Gay Bill

There are 20 comments on the KVOR-AM Colorado Springs story from Feb 23, 2014, titled Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer: 'I've Got Plenty of Time' to Decide on Anti-Gay Bill. In it, KVOR-AM Colorado Springs reports that:

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer deflected questions Saturday about whether she would sign or veto a controversial anti-gay law that passed her state's legislature this week.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at KVOR-AM Colorado Springs.

First Prev
of 5
Next Last

Since: Oct 10

San Francisco

#1 Feb 23, 2014
"'I need to explore it,' said Brewer, a Republican."

What's to explore? She's had plenty of time already to decide whether she'll say no to homophobia or join her fellow republican bigots. What she really means is "I don't care about what's right. I need to assess how this will affect my political career."

Judged:

13

11

11

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
hi hi

Lancaster, PA

#2 Feb 23, 2014
GoldenGator wrote:
"'I need to explore it,' said Brewer, a Republican."
What's to explore? She's had plenty of time already to decide whether she'll say no to homophobia or join her fellow republican bigots. What she really means is "I don't care about what's right. I need to assess how this will affect my political career."
I wonder if it's a show of "control," as well. In one sense, she doesn't have a choice: She will be challenged and the law will be taken to court; she cannot stop that. This is her way of acting as if she had the decision in HER hands, as if no other outside person or influence was dictating to her. And in fact, they're not: We all know the pro-gay. They are quietly, patiently waiting with the lawsuit papers in their hands, but they won't interfere.

They'll simply file those lawsuits the nanosecond this is signed.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#3 Feb 23, 2014
GoldenGator wrote:
"'I need to explore it,' said Brewer, a Republican."
What's to explore? She's had plenty of time already to decide whether she'll say no to homophobia or join her fellow republican bigots. What she really means is "I don't care about what's right. I need to assess how this will affect my political career."
I don't think she has a "political career" left. She's in her 2nd term as governor and she's term-limited so she can't run for reelection. And neither of Arizona's 2 U.S. senators are leaving the Senate, and she's certainly not POTUS material, and she's in her 70's.

So what "political career" are you talking about ? This is the end f her political career no matter what she decides to regarding this bill.

Last year, she vetoed a bill similar to this one. I hope she vetoes this bill as well.
alan

Lincoln, CA

#4 Feb 23, 2014
Is this 1963 Mississippi where you are refused service???
What the difference in this law???

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#5 Feb 23, 2014
alan wrote:
Is this 1963 Mississippi where you are refused service???
What the difference in this law???
In 1963 Mississippi the law required white business owners to refuse service to blacks. Those who served blacks were arrested and charged with race mixing. In Arizona they are saying the government will no longer force business owners to serve gay people. In Arizona a business owner has a choice to serve or not serve gays, in Mississippi if you served blacks you could be arrested.
Fundies R Mentally ill

Philadelphia, PA

#6 Feb 23, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
In 1963 Mississippi the law required white business owners to refuse service to blacks. Those who served blacks were arrested and charged with race mixing. In Arizona they are saying the government will no longer force business owners to serve gay people. In Arizona a business owner has a choice to serve or not serve gays, in Mississippi if you served blacks you could be arrested.
That's a grossly distorted and disturbed post on many levels.

First, contrary to your post, there is no such law in AZ as the one being discussed.

Second, the Civil Rights Act did far more than to outlaw the arrest of business owners who agreed to serve black customers (in the same ways or areas of the business as white customers.)

The Civil Rights Act said business owners may not discriminate. The law has since been expanded federally to other categories, and in various locales to even more categories, including sexual orientation.

You are insane, misinformed and misinforming.

Since: Jan 08

Thailand

#7 Feb 23, 2014
Fundies R Mentally ill wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a grossly distorted and disturbed post on many levels.
First, contrary to your post, there is no such law in AZ as the one being discussed.
Second, the Civil Rights Act did far more than to outlaw the arrest of business owners who agreed to serve black customers (in the same ways or areas of the business as white customers.)
The Civil Rights Act said business owners may not discriminate. The law has since been expanded federally to other categories, and in various locales to even more categories, including sexual orientation.
You are insane, misinformed and misinforming.
I didn't get the same impression that you did. I thought the Rev's reply was simply informative in explaining the differences in both laws. He wasn't defending either, just showing that bigotry has shown itself in different ways by some of our lunatic law makers.
Fundies R Mentally ill

Philadelphia, PA

#8 Feb 23, 2014
Dubya wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't get the same impression that you did. I thought the Rev's reply was simply informative in explaining the differences in both laws. He wasn't defending either, just showing that bigotry has shown itself in different ways by some of our lunatic law makers.
You are not reading carefully and you are apparently unaware of his position on this general question as he's been going on about in the CO baker threads.

He definitely has mis stated the state of the laws here, in that typically disingenuous reply of his.

He definitely believes that businesses are permitted to discriminate on whatever basis they wish. Not that they should be permitted to, but that they already are - somehow - permitted to.
Ronald

Palo Alto, CA

#9 Feb 23, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
In 1963 Mississippi the law required white business owners to refuse service to blacks. Those who served blacks were arrested and charged with race mixing. In Arizona they are saying the government will no longer force business owners to serve gay people. In Arizona a business owner has a choice to serve or not serve gays, in Mississippi if you served blacks you could be arrested.
Thank you for showing how utterly ridiculous and a slap in the face it is to black people to compare this and any gay rights issue to their struggle. Yes, there are similarities but the discrimination against and oppression of blacks was hundreds if not thousands of times worse.
david traversa

Cordoba, Argentina

#10 Feb 23, 2014
A vulgar case of cold feet ..
juls

Mount Vernon, OH

#11 Feb 23, 2014
=--Damn she is ugly...only a republican jackass could look at that very long......and we can discriminate against that.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#12 Feb 23, 2014
Lemme guess.

She's going to quietly put out two hats ...

and see which one is filled first?

Since: Jul 09

Indy/Philly/Toronto

#13 Feb 23, 2014
The fact that Gov. Brewer is even considering this and repliers here are debating whether or not this is similar to the civil rights era proves that America is a grossly divided, directionless and leaderless country that is over analyzing the fact that hate a bigotry are still prevalent.
Even more amazing is that "christians" are ignoring their own beliefs and claiming to be the victims of an imaginary menace only to legitimize their hate for a certain group of people.
This is about as disgusting as it gets.
hi hi

Lancaster, PA

#14 Feb 24, 2014
mark in Toronto wrote:
The fact that Gov. Brewer is even considering this and repliers here are debating whether or not this is similar to the civil rights era proves that America is a grossly divided, directionless and leaderless country that is over analyzing the fact that hate a bigotry are still prevalent.
Even more amazing is that "christians" are ignoring their own beliefs and claiming to be the victims of an imaginary menace only to legitimize their hate for a certain group of people.
This is about as disgusting as it gets.
In a larger sense than you cited here, what "flabbergasts" me, so to speak, is that it's so D I F F I C U L T to stay on track with arguments because of hatred, the antigay, and trolls.

I kept trying to expand on this but it prompts so many thoughts that I am letting it go at fervent agreement with you, except for the following:

I think the fact that the people are *just about evenly divided* between TWO political parties is key. It's a dream come true for those "in authority." It's THE dream come true.

It assures (1) eternal struggle between only two controllable factions and (2) that those struggling will constantly struggle on the perceived enemy -- the OTHER group -- rather than put a stop to ... oh, I dunno ... certain things ... that we cannot put a stop to because the people cannot band together to politically or legally stop them ...

It's a dream come true. They have it made, and for the past year or more, I have come to see that people arguing the politics themselves and the issues themselves is, in some ways, a giant smoke screen.
larry

Mesquite, TX

#15 Feb 24, 2014
Ronald wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for showing how utterly ridiculous and a slap in the face it is to black people to compare this and any gay rights issue to their struggle. Yes, there are similarities but the discrimination against and oppression of blacks was hundreds if not thousands of times worse.
Dude "DISRIMINATION is just that DISCRIMINATION. Black white, brown, Gay. That is just the point. In this setting and your setting worse was not the issue. Do not try to put squares in round holes. It does not fit.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#18 Feb 24, 2014
Lamar wrote:
I say she waits until the end of the century to decide.
According to the Arizona Constitution, she has 5 days from the time the bill reaches her desk to either:

a. sign the bill into law

b. veto the bill

c. allow the bill to become law without her signature

I don't know if the bill has actually reached her yet, but my guess is we will know the fate of this bill before the end of this week.

I hope she vetoes the bill. There is not enough support in the legislature to override her veto if she does veto it.

Also, she faces no political costs really whether she signs the bill or vetoes it, because she is term-limited and so she cannot run for reelection. And she does not aspire to higher office.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#19 Feb 24, 2014
Ronald wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for showing how utterly ridiculous and a slap in the face it is to black people to compare this and any gay rights issue to their struggle. Yes, there are similarities but the discrimination against and oppression of blacks was hundreds if not thousands of times worse.
Coretta Scott King disagrees with you.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#20 Feb 24, 2014
Even their GOP Senator (Flake) came out today to urge Gov Brewer to veto this bill.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#21 Feb 24, 2014
Ronald wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for showing how utterly ridiculous and a slap in the face it is to black people to compare this and any gay rights issue to their struggle. Yes, there are similarities but the discrimination against and oppression of blacks was hundreds if not thousands of times worse.
How do YOU know?

Since: Jul 09

Indy/Philly/Toronto

#23 Feb 24, 2014
hi hi wrote:
<quoted text>
In a larger sense than you cited here, what "flabbergasts" me, so to speak, is that it's so D I F F I C U L T to stay on track with arguments because of hatred, the antigay, and trolls.
Yes ... the "third" party.
It's so obvious that this is ALL a contrivance of (fill in the blank). Once we know who this is, only then can we act. Thanks for adding that part.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 5
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US Governors Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 14 min Igor Trip 162,022
News Bristol Palin: Why she backs Duck Dynasty patri... (Dec '13) 30 min Moron detector 9
News DCF workers plan Pittsfield picket over caseloa... 1 hr DCF Monsters and ... 22
News Gov. Walker slights Obama, Clinton on foreign p... 1 hr Davy 7
News Sarah Palin responds to PETA criticism with 'Ch... 1 hr Claude Balls 7
News O'Malley gets scrutiny over police record as Ba... 2 hr Carly 1
News Sarah Palin celebrates daughter Bristol's engag... 2 hr Tazo 1
More from around the web