Gov. Brewer's attack on rights associated with property ownership

[johnwk]

.
SEE: Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoes controversial anti-gay bill, SB 1062 (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CD0QqQIwAw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2014%2F02%2F26%2Fpo litics%2Farizona-brewer-bill%2F&ei=_AgSU_rQDs7G0gHmqIAI&usg=AFQjCNGqySJHhTGXtf_jJI7krG8fZNTQcw)

This is another attack upon rights associated with property ownership just like the smoking control freaks who also use government force to seize control over another person’s private property for their personal use and enjoyment who forbid the owner of said property to allow his guests to smoke thereon. But we were warned against submitting to such tyranny:


”Submit to despotism for an hour and you concede the principle. John Adams said, in 1775, “Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud.” It is the only thing a people determined to be free can do. Republics have often failed, and have been succeeded by the most revolting despotisms; and always it was the voice of timidity, cowardice, or false leaders counseling submission, that led to the final downfall of freedom. It was the cowardice and treachery of the Senate of Rome that allowed the usurper to gain power, inch by inch, to overthrow the Republic. The history of the downfall of Republics is the same in all ages. The first inch that is yielded to despotism - the first blow, dealt at the Constitution, that is not resisted - is the beginning of the end of the nation’s ruin.” See: THE OLD GUARD, A MONTHLY JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF 1776 AND 1787, HOW TO TREAT UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTS OF CONGRESS (http://digital.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=oldg;cc=oldg;rgn=full%20text;idno=oldg0001-5;didno=oldg0001-5;view=image;seq=00127;node=oldg0001-5%3A1)


When these control freaks are finished there will be nothing left standing but publically owned property and the iron fist of a communist government!


JWK

[P]roperty [does not] lose its private character merely because the public is generally invited to use it for designated purposes._____LLOYD CORP. v. TANNER, 407 U.S. 551 (1972)

[pcosmar]

Brewer did exactly the right thing killing this crap bill.

It was NOT about "Property Rights".
It was about phony religious bigotry.

[johnwk]

Brewer did exactly the right thing killing this crap bill.

It was NOT about "Property Rights".
It was about phony religious bigotry.

And who was it that threatened Gov. Brewer? Was it not our **** sexual crowd and others who want to control the property of others?


We all know what this is really about which is control freaks wanting to control the property of others.


JWK




Is America on the verge of submitting to communism without a shot being fired?

[JK/SEA]

And who was it that threatened Gov. Brewer? Was it not our **** sexual crowd and others who want to control the property of others?


We all know what this is really about which is control freaks wanting to control the property of others.


JWK




Is America on the verge of submitting to communism without a shot being fired?



why do people want to exclude gay people from spending money in an establishment?....seems like a fucked up business plan, and they deserve to go out of business for being fucking morons based on that alone...

nothing says God is Love...unless you're gay....

big brow caveman thinking at best...

[tod evans]

why do people want to exclude gay people from spending money in an establishment?....seems like a fucked up business plan, and they deserve to go out of business for being fucking morons based on that alone...

nothing says God is Love...unless you're gay....

big brow caveman thinking at best...

If a business owner wants to refuse to serve anyone for any reason that's his prerogative.

This idea that it's okay for government to require a man to toil for someone he finds offensive is insane.

[AuH20]

Brewer did exactly the right thing killing this crap bill.

It was NOT about "Property Rights".
It was about phony religious bigotry.

Which is the decision of the property owner. You can't expect to control thoughts and behavior.

[Lucille]

And who was it that threatened Gov. Brewer? Was it not our **** sexual crowd and others who want to control the property of others?
We all know what this is really about which is control freaks wanting to control the property of others.

JWK

The chamber of commies (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/christianity-chinatown-gay-corporate-capitalism/) et al.

What bewilders me is how eager homosexuals are to give their money to people who hate them.

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/264/200/acb.jpg

For some reason, enriching bigots is more important to them than legalizing gay marriage in AZ (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?445250-Reminder-LGBT-advocacy-groups-in-Arizona-killed-Equal-Marriage-Arizona-ballot-initiative).

[JK/SEA]

If a business owner wants to refuse to serve anyone for any reason that's his prerogative.

This idea that it's okay for government to require a man to toil for someone he finds offensive is insane.

understood, however, it still reflects a negative in profit. As a straight white male, i wouldn't give my money to a biz exercising this biz plan of excluding a group like gay people...its so....low brow and ignorant, but whatever. If its so offensive to someone, perhaps being a biz owner isn't the way to go go for someone like that......imho.

[JK/SEA]

The chamber of commies (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/christianity-chinatown-gay-corporate-capitalism/) et al.

What bewilders me is how eager homosexuals are to give their money to people who hate them.

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/264/200/acb.jpg

For some reason, enriching bigots is more important to them than legalizing gay marriage in AZ (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?445250-Reminder-LGBT-advocacy-groups-in-Arizona-killed-Equal-Marriage-Arizona-ballot-initiative).

i can agree with that perception....

[pcosmar]

And who was it that threatened Gov. Brewer?

Threatened?
I am sure the Governor got advice from many people.

It was a bad bill, poorly written, offensive, dishonest and contrary to present law.
It would have been turned very quickly against the religious community as well.

Blowback happens.

[AuH20]

Threatened?
I am sure the Governor got advice from many people.

It was a bad bill, poorly written, offensive, dishonest and contrary to present law.
It would have been turned very quickly against the religious community very quickly as well.

Blowback happens.

Actually, the preemptive measures by the other party were launched in another state with jail time and civil lawsuits. The force of the government & slanted legal system was being harshly brought upon parties who couldn't reconcile such activity.

[angelatc]

Brewer did exactly the right thing killing this crap bill.

It was NOT about "Property Rights".
It was about phony religious bigotry.


It was both. It was about the right to be a bigot on your own property.

[tod evans]

understood, however, it still reflects a negative in profit. As a straight white male, i wouldn't give my money to a biz exercising this biz plan of excluding a group like gay people...its so....low brow and ignorant, but whatever. If its so offensive to someone, perhaps being a biz owner isn't the way to go go for someone like that......imho.

But it's not governments place to say one man can trade and another can't just because of their prejudices..

If government is permitted this latitude the next step is "perceived" prejudice....An who would make that assertion or decision?

[pcosmar]

If a business owner wants to refuse to serve anyone for any reason that's his prerogative.

This idea that it's okay for government to require a man to toil for someone he finds offensive is insane.

And if the bill had been presented as,, and worded as a Property Rights issue,, confirming the Right to refuse service,, based on Property rights,, then it would have been different. I could have supported that.

It was not.

It was written was a religious right to be a bigot bill.
Poorly written and poorly conceived.

[pcosmar]

But it's not governments place to say one man can trade and another can't just because of their prejudices..

If government is permitted this latitude the next step is "perceived" prejudice....An who would make that assertion or decision?

True,,
And the CRA went much too far,, and could use some correcting.

This bill was just poorly conceived and presented. Due in the most part to the narrow minds involved.

[tod evans]

I haven't read the bill so my comments are strictly related to the comments in this thread..

If somebody tries to make me build some stairs or a door for someone I don't want to work for the fight'll be on...

[JK/SEA]

But it's not governments place to say one man can trade and another can't just because of their prejudices..

If government is permitted this latitude the next step is "perceived" prejudice....An who would make that assertion or decision?

if FORD Motor Company decided they didn't want to sell me a car based on the fact i have red hair, that would be ok?...i happen to agree they would have the right to do so, but i need a new car...so, i get a Chevy instead....blowback, because now, thousands of red heads tell FORD to fuck off and buy chevy's...FORD gets hammered in profits over a single issue over ignorance. FORD goes out of biz...good move right?

why would anyone want a FORD now?....hypothetical scenario.

these bitcher and whiner biz owners over gays make me laugh...

[JK/SEA]

I haven't read the bill so my comments are strictly related to the comments in this thread..

If somebody tries to make me build some stairs or a door for someone I don't want to work for the fight'll be on...

why would you do that?....a job and money are what you got into biz for right?

if starting a biz based on the fact you can now exclude doing a job for money for someone based on a prejudice something you want to gravitate too?...doesn't make any rational sense....is it an excuse to be a dick?...not you, i'm being hypothetical here...

[pcosmar]

I haven't read the bill so my comments are strictly related to the comments in this thread..

.
The bill was written and presented as "Religious Freedom",, and not from the principle of property rights.

It was based in dishonesty from inception,, and would have actually hurt more in the long run than it would help.

[tod evans]

The bill was written and presented as "Religious Freedom",, and not from the principle of property rights.

It was based in dishonesty from inception,, and would have actually hurt more in the long run than it would help.

What about the ***** religion(s) ?

[pcosmar]

Actually, the preemptive measures by the other party were launched in another state with jail time and civil lawsuits. The force of the government & slanted legal system was being harshly brought upon parties who couldn't reconcile such activity.

That is because there are laws against blatant discrimination.

Fact of life. They have been there since the 60s.
That very well should be corrected,, but this was still a bad bill to do so..

Re write it. Present a better argument for Property Rights and leave the phony hypocrisy out of it.

[pcosmar]

What about the ***** religion(s) ?

I could care less about Gays. I am not gay,, nor am I phobic.

But anytime any group is targeted for discrimination,, it will come back and bite anyone else.

[tod evans]

I could care less about Gays. I am not gay,, nor am I phobic.

But anytime any group is targeted for discrimination,, it will come back and bite anyone else.


Of course it will...

Pushing new laws based on "belief" whether religious or political is nuts but it happens daily...

[pcosmar]

Of course it will...



And this is why I am glad this bill was vetoed.
It was poorly conceived and poorly presented, and based on hypocrisy.

And personally as a (christian) Believer,, Hypocrisy is one of the ugliest offenses.

[Carson]

.

This is another attack upon rights associated with property ownership just like the smoking control freaks who also use government force to seize control over another person’s private property for their personal use and enjoyment who forbid the owner of said property to allow his guests to smoke thereon. But we were warned against submitting to such tyranny:


”Submit to despotism for an hour and you concede the principle. John Adams said, in 1775, “Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud.” It is the only thing a people determined to be free can do. Republics have often failed, and have been succeeded by the most revolting despotisms; and always it was the voice of timidity, cowardice, or false leaders counseling submission, that led to the final downfall of freedom. It was the cowardice and treachery of the Senate of Rome that allowed the usurper to gain power, inch by inch, to overthrow the Republic. The history of the downfall of Republics is the same in all ages. The first inch that is yielded to despotism - the first blow, dealt at the Constitution, that is not resisted - is the beginning of the end of the nation’s ruin.” See: THE OLD GUARD, A MONTHLY JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF 1776 AND 1787, HOW TO TREAT UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTS OF CONGRESS (http://digital.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=oldg;cc=oldg;rgn=full%20text;idno=oldg0001-5;didno=oldg0001-5;view=image;seq=00127;node=oldg0001-5%3A1)


When these control freaks are finished there will be nothing left standing but publically owned property and the iron fist of a communist government!


JWK

[P]roperty [does not] lose its private character merely because the public is generally invited to use it for designated purposes._____LLOYD CORP. v. TANNER, 407 U.S. 551 (1972)



Seems to me even our publicly owned property is in the hands of Despot's. The right of passage and use are controlled by robber barrens and stiffing us with rent and rules.

Negates the whole concept of publicly owned.


I rail and raise the fist of defiance...

and the need to restore our legacy and heritage through Imminent Domain.