Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   Fact-checkers: anti-gay bill was neither "anti" or "gay"   (talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 328
    More: Unlikely, checkers, journalism school  
•       •       •

4551 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Feb 2014 at 9:54 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



328 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-27 08:07:09 AM  
And their anti-Mexican law wasn't anti-Mexican either.  I wonder where people get these crazy ideas that Arizona is targeting unwanted groups with their laws.
 
2014-02-27 08:19:50 AM  
Fact-checkers: poll tax bill was not "anti-black" or "anti-poor" because it didn't explicitly say "f*ck those sharecropping sp*des."
 
2014-02-27 08:24:14 AM  
Why anyone in America would live south of West Virgina or west of Pittsburgh puzzles me. Sure, it's nice to visit some places there, but that's why plane tickets come in round trip pairs.
 
2014-02-27 08:31:21 AM  
The Center for Arizona Policy, which wrote the bill...

There ya go, Arizona Republican voters. That's who's writing your legislation for you. Aren't y'all glad you elected the Center for Arizona Policy?
 
2014-02-27 08:45:36 AM  
TPM could link to the goddamned thing. HERE.

They redefine what a person is and what government is. This is the big deal.

"Person" includes a religious assembly or institution

"Person" includes ANY INDIVIDUAL, ASSOCIATION, PARTNERSHIP, CORPORATION, CHURCH, RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY OR INSTITUTION, ESTATE, TRUST, FOUNDATION OR OTHER LEGAL ENTITY.

Why redefine a person?

They then redefine government to 'state action'

Except as provided in subsection C, government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.
Except as provided in subsection C OF THIS SECTION, STATE ACTION shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.

Why?

The new entry to the law:
FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, "STATE ACTION" MEANS ANY ACTION BY THE GOVERNMENT OR THE IMPLEMENTATION OR APPLICATION OF ANY LAW, INCLUDING STATE AND LOCAL LAWS, ORDINANCES, RULES, REGULATIONS AND POLICIES, WHETHER STATUTORY OR OTHERWISE, AND WHETHER THE IMPLEMENTATION OR APPLICATION IS MADE OR ATTEMPTED TO BE MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT OR NONGOVERNMENTAL PERSONS.


We are basically absolving any person or group of any laws if they claim 'religion'. The new law basically puts the burden of proof on the person who is discriminated against, not the person or entity that is discriminating.

IANAL. Legal beagles feel free to chime in if I am wrong.
 
2014-02-27 08:45:40 AM  
It just wasn't "pro-gay" enough to suit everyone.
 
2014-02-27 08:51:42 AM  

Nadie_AZ: Legal beagles


argle-bargle
 
2014-02-27 08:54:40 AM  

somedude210: Nadie_AZ: Legal beagles

argle-bargle


I generally can't stand Scalia, but that is one of my top three favorite made-up words ever. Always makes me smile.

/and its perfectly cromulent
 
2014-02-27 08:59:23 AM  

gilgigamesh: I generally can't stand Scalia, but that is one of my top three favorite made-up words ever. Always makes me smile.

/and its perfectly cromulent


also very relevant to this discussion since he said that during the....DOMA decision? Either that or Prop 8, but I think it was DOMA
 
2014-02-27 09:02:55 AM  
Sooo the bill *technically* wasn't anti-gay in that...

"This (bill) is not a discrimination bill," state Rep. Adam Kwasman (R) said. "It makes no mention of sexual orientation."

...but then TFA basically goes on to admit...

...the analysis noted that the bill's sponsors had outright said that the legislation was motivated in part by the case of a New Mexico wedding photographer who refused to provide services to a same-sex couple.

Gotcha.
 
2014-02-27 09:07:38 AM  

kid_icarus: Sooo the bill *technically* wasn't anti-gay in that...

"This (bill) is not a discrimination bill," state Rep. Adam Kwasman (R) said. "It makes no mention of sexual orientation."

...but then TFA basically goes on to admit...

...the analysis noted that the bill's sponsors had outright said that the legislation was motivated in part by the case of a New Mexico wedding photographer who refused to provide services to a same-sex couple.

Gotcha.


It was 'anti everything we don't like'.
 
2014-02-27 09:07:44 AM  

kid_icarus: Sooo the bill *technically* wasn't anti-gay in that...

"This (bill) is not a discrimination bill," state Rep. Adam Kwasman (R) said. "It makes no mention of sexual orientation."

...but then TFA basically goes on to admit...

...the analysis noted that the bill's sponsors had outright said that the legislation was motivated in part by the case of a New Mexico wedding photographer who refused to provide services to a same-sex couple.

Gotcha.


And Jan Brewer vetoed it for no particular reason when even the bill's sponsors realized how badly they'd farked up.

I crossed Arizona off my list years ago, and this does nothing to improve my opinion of the place.  Once they run out of water we should give it back to Mexico.
 
2014-02-27 09:13:16 AM  

Nadie_AZ: TPM could link to the goddamned thing. HERE.

They redefine what a person is and what government is. This is the big deal.

"Person" includes a religious assembly or institution

"Person" includes ANY INDIVIDUAL, ASSOCIATION, PARTNERSHIP, CORPORATION, CHURCH, RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY OR INSTITUTION, ESTATE, TRUST, FOUNDATION OR OTHER LEGAL ENTITY.

Why redefine a person?

They then redefine government to 'state action'

Except as provided in subsection C, government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.
Except as provided in subsection C OF THIS SECTION, STATE ACTION shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.

Why?

The new entry to the law:
FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, "STATE ACTION" MEANS ANY ACTION BY THE GOVERNMENT OR THE IMPLEMENTATION OR APPLICATION OF ANY LAW, INCLUDING STATE AND LOCAL LAWS, ORDINANCES, RULES, REGULATIONS AND POLICIES, WHETHER STATUTORY OR OTHERWISE, AND WHETHER THE IMPLEMENTATION OR APPLICATION IS MADE OR ATTEMPTED TO BE MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT OR NONGOVERNMENTAL PERSONS.


We are basically absolving any person or group of any laws if they claim 'religion'. The new law basically puts the burden of proof on the person who is discriminated against, not the person or entity that is discriminating.

IANAL. Legal beagles feel free to chime in if I am wrong.


Pretty much. It was a stinker, that they KNEW was a stinker, but it was sort of nice Hail Mary that would please the crowd. And they threw some folks a bone, with the knowledge that it couldn't pass muster, but then they could claim, "Hey we TRIED, but those darned Demmycrats and Liberals..." and the State wouldn't have to be on the hook for defending it when it came around to be challenged. Only problem is: they passed it. They passed this stinker, as a favor to C.A.P. and then had to urge their own Governor to pull the plug, because KNEW going in that it would never stand a challenge, that it would cost the state a crap load of bad press, a crap load of cash, and it would pass its stink onto elections in the fall. It was supposed to pass on the stink to those who opposed it, who killed it, who stood in the way of decent Arizonans. And instead, they wound up passing it, and had to, at the last minute, urge the Governor to do the only thing left, and that was kill it before their monster actually get passed into stinking, fetid law.

What is sad, is that it is the blueprint for a lot of other legislation across the country, and will be used to draft more, and folks across the country will have to keep aware and vigilant because one thing that the Religious Right, and well, most legislatures in all honesty, are good at, is lifting large sections of other bills to stitch and paste together new bills. Cripes, US PATRIOT was the love child of bills that folks had been trying for years to pass as singular bills, the ACA stitched together a lot of other bills, and lifted sections from Romney's own health care reform in Mass. This bill will see pieces reworked, and substituted across the country, and folks will still try to circumvent civil protections, under the guise of "religious freedom" for years to come, and you'll see them try the same tactic, to claim that it's NOT about discrimination, but about "freedom." The same way that a bill that authorizes cutting down hundreds of acres of forest is an environmental protection act...
 
2014-02-27 09:17:24 AM  

Nadie_AZ: "Person" includes ANY INDIVIDUAL, ASSOCIATION, PARTNERSHIP, CORPORATION, CHURCH, RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY OR INSTITUTION, ESTATE, TRUST, FOUNDATION OR OTHER LEGAL ENTITY.

Why redefine a person?


You know what would've been funny? If they passed this bill along with a Personhood amendment for anti-abortion cases.
 
2014-02-27 09:57:00 AM  
in other news fact checkers, like every other organization whose profit comes from clicks, generally prefer controversial findings to actual factual findings
 
2014-02-27 09:57:53 AM  
That's certainly an opinion.
 
2014-02-27 09:58:23 AM  
"This (bill) is not a discrimination bill," state Rep. Adam Kwasman (R) said. "It makes no mention of sexual orientation."

So if you see it as anti-gay, YOU'RE the homophobe!!!!
 
2014-02-27 10:01:02 AM  
Well, yes, the bill wasn't TECHNICALLY anti-gay because it didn't mention gay in the language.

And, as we all know, technically correct is best correct.
 
2014-02-27 10:02:12 AM  
It's about as dumb as the people who will tell you that DOMA and it's state counterparts didn't discriminate because gay people can still get married just not to each other.
 
2014-02-27 10:02:41 AM  
It's almost like these "fact-checkers" haven't heard of the legal construct of "discriminatory impact".  They seem to think that unless it actually uses the words "sexual orientation" or some variation of that term, it's all good and that is the end of the inquiry.
 
2014-02-27 10:03:56 AM  

Nadie_AZ: We are basically absolving any person or group of any laws if they claim 'religion'. The new law basically puts the burden of proof on the person who is discriminated against, not the person or entity that is discriminating.


It's already legal to discriminate against gays in Arizona.  This law was hoping to make it super duper doubly legal because gays are that icky.
 
2014-02-27 10:04:41 AM  
And "act of terror" isn't the same as "terrorism".

STFU you assholes.
 
2014-02-27 10:05:25 AM  

gilgigamesh: I generally can't stand Scalia, but that is one of my top three favorite made-up words ever. Always makes me smile.


It's not made up. At least, no more so than any words are made up. Either way, Scalia sure as hell isn't the one who invented it. He may be well educated, but he's just not smart enough

"The fun phrase "argle bargle," however, first appeared as early as 1808 in Jamieson's "Etymological Dictionary of the Scottish Tongue."
 
2014-02-27 10:05:45 AM  
The bill does not explicitly mention allowing discrimination against gays, it just allows for legal discrimination against gays. Totes dif.
 
2014-02-27 10:06:15 AM  
It wasn't anti-gay, but it could just be used to discriminate against gays. Big difference, guys.

Why do you homo-fascist liberals hate Christian freedom so much?
 
2014-02-27 10:06:21 AM  
Hey Subs,

The fact-checkers walked it back a little:
"The fact-check group has updated its post, now saying that the Kwasman statement is "somewhat true, somewhat false." The new bottom line reads:

Kwasman is accurate that SB 1062 does not mention "sexual orientation."
But Kwasman's assertion that the bill "is not a discrimination bill" is a murkier issue. Constitutional law experts have pointed out ways in which the bill could be construed as having the effect of encouraging discriminatory behavior.

It is true, however, that the bill would have no effect, even if passed, under current state law because same-sex couples are not protected under state discrimination laws."

So yeah. It wasn't "ANTI-GAY" explicitly, but it did open it up to allow people to discriminate against gays without fearing any reprisal. And while it's also true that gays aren't a protected class in AZ, if someone was to discriminate, they still could get hit with a lawsuit. This bill was trying to cut those guys off at the pass and keep them from getting sued.

Thankfully, this shiat was vetoed. Unfortunately, it's painted my home state in an even more terrible light than it already has been.
 
2014-02-27 10:06:37 AM  
The "fact checking" is technically correct (which is, as is known, the best kind of correct), as the bill did not explicitly allow discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. In this way, those who advocated the bill (because it would in effect allow discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation) can now claim that 1) the bill did not target homosexuals (because it technically did not) and 2) they did not wish for it to be signed into law anyway.
 
2014-02-27 10:06:43 AM  

EvilEgg: And their anti-Mexican law wasn't anti-Mexican either.  I wonder where people get these crazy ideas that Arizona is targeting unwanted groups with their laws.


One of my good friends was pulled over because the cop said he "looked like he has a suspended license."

Welcome to America.

Papers please
 
2014-02-27 10:07:33 AM  
What I can't figure out is the business backlash. Is it something like businesses don't want their employees to refuse to do work on religious grounds above and beyond the protections of the Civil Rights Act, since this would move the bar from reasonable accommodation to any damn thing you want for any reason?
 
2014-02-27 10:07:35 AM  
This (bill) is not a discrimination bill," state Rep. Adam Kwasman (R) said. "It makes no mention of sexual orientation

Sophistry in defense of bigotry. Modern "intellectual" conservatism in a nutshell
 
2014-02-27 10:08:51 AM  

lennavan: Nadie_AZ: We are basically absolving any person or group of any laws if they claim 'religion'. The new law basically puts the burden of proof on the person who is discriminated against, not the person or entity that is discriminating.

It's already legal to discriminate against gays in Arizona.  This law was hoping to make it super duper doubly legal because gays are that icky.


While I am happy to see this stupid pandering bullshiat die a whimpering death, the perverse part of me wants to see one of these laws pass in some ultra-Christian state just to see the head asplosions the minute a Muslim claims this right to discriminate based on his sincere religious belief.
 
2014-02-27 10:09:41 AM  
Fact checkers: The Constitution has no mention of the Bible or Jesus.

Fact checkers: The 14th Amendment clearly states, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."
 
2014-02-27 10:11:45 AM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: It's not made up. At least, no more so than any words are made up


gifrific.com

 
2014-02-27 10:11:58 AM  

doglover: Why anyone in America would live south of West Virgina or west of Pittsburgh puzzles me. Sure, it's nice to visit some places there, but that's why plane tickets come in round trip pairs.


I have traveled to pretty much every region of the U.S. and have never found any place more provincial than that wonderous cultural mecca of those from 'back east.' You can find derp anywhere.
ravenseniors.wikispaces.com
Boston, 1974
 
2014-02-27 10:12:01 AM  

gilgigamesh: lennavan: Nadie_AZ: We are basically absolving any person or group of any laws if they claim 'religion'. The new law basically puts the burden of proof on the person who is discriminated against, not the person or entity that is discriminating.

It's already legal to discriminate against gays in Arizona.  This law was hoping to make it super duper doubly legal because gays are that icky.

While I am happy to see this stupid pandering bullshiat die a whimpering death, the perverse part of me wants to see one of these laws pass in some ultra-Christian state just to see the head asplosions the minute a Muslim claims this right to discriminate based on his sincere religious belief.


Well, I've heard claims from the Right that Islam "isn't a religion," and I'd imagine that anyplace knuckle-dragging enough to pass a "religious freedom" law wouldn't have a major problem with tacking on a little addendum or two.
 
2014-02-27 10:12:07 AM  

Fantasta Potamus: EvilEgg: And their anti-Mexican law wasn't anti-Mexican either.  I wonder where people get these crazy ideas that Arizona is targeting unwanted groups with their laws.

One of my good friends was pulled over because the cop said he "looked like he has a suspended license."

Welcome to America.

Papers please


In Arizona?

Texas has been in the news a lot lately for people who have the gall to Exist While Black.

Here in Arizona, it is 'Breathing While Brown'.
 
2014-02-27 10:13:07 AM  
The fact-checking group -- a collaboration between the Arizona Republic, KPNX and Arizona State University's journalism school

That's not Bullshiat Mountain anymore. They've apparently mined the bullshiat ore contained therein to build Fort Bullshiat.
 
2014-02-27 10:14:03 AM  
img.fark.net

What an Arizona fact-checker might look like
 
2014-02-27 10:14:28 AM  

Nadie_AZ: TPM could link to the goddamned thing. HERE.

They redefine what a person is and what government is. This is the big deal.

"Person" includes a religious assembly or institution

"Person" includes ANY INDIVIDUAL, ASSOCIATION, PARTNERSHIP, CORPORATION, CHURCH, RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY OR INSTITUTION, ESTATE, TRUST, FOUNDATION OR OTHER LEGAL ENTITY.

Why redefine a person?

They then redefine government to 'state action'

Except as provided in subsection C, government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.
Except as provided in subsection C OF THIS SECTION, STATE ACTION shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.

Why?

The new entry to the law:
FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, "STATE ACTION" MEANS ANY ACTION BY THE GOVERNMENT OR THE IMPLEMENTATION OR APPLICATION OF ANY LAW, INCLUDING STATE AND LOCAL LAWS, ORDINANCES, RULES, REGULATIONS AND POLICIES, WHETHER STATUTORY OR OTHERWISE, AND WHETHER THE IMPLEMENTATION OR APPLICATION IS MADE OR ATTEMPTED TO BE MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT OR NONGOVERNMENTAL PERSONS.


We are basically absolving any person or group of any laws if they claim 'religion'. The new law basically puts the burden of proof on the person who is discriminated against, not the person or entity that is discriminating.

IANAL. Legal beagles feel free to chime in if I am wrong.


Reading the bill, it sounds as if I made, "Being Gay" a religion. I could then sue the state for burdening my "religion" in a variety of ways?
 
2014-02-27 10:14:31 AM  

coeyagi: The Voter ID law isn't anti Democrat either.

F*ck you, person who posited this crap.  Motives are clear even if language isn't, dipsh*t.


Don't get the wrong idea from the Fark headline... Subby's article has a headline of: "Fact-Checkers Inexplicably Conclude Arizona's Anti-Gay Bill Isn't Anti-Gay"

The "Unlikely" tag was obviously put there referring to these "fact-checkers'" claims.
 
2014-02-27 10:14:50 AM  
Who could have guessed that fact checking organizations need to be fact checked?

And why when one of their checkings appears slanted it always is slanted to legitimize right wing "facts"?
 
2014-02-27 10:15:54 AM  

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: What I can't figure out is the business backlash.


"In 2009, more than 35 million visitors spent $16.6 billion throughout the state, contributing nearly $45 million each day into Arizona's economy. The [travel and tourism] industry, which produces revenue in all 15 Arizona counties, is also responsible for generating $2.4 billion in local, state and federal tax revenues. Additionally, the Arizona tourism industry directly employs more than 150,000 Arizona residents. Combined with the secondary employment that is generated, more than 290,000 Arizona residents are impacted by this dynamic industry."
 
2014-02-27 10:16:22 AM  
They're right, the language of the bill was so broad that it was a "religious belief trumps everything ever" bill.  Which still made it unconstitutional, stupid, and a waste of farking time.
And as TFA points out--AZ has no state-level protections for gay people.  You are already allowed to discriminate against gay people without consequence in a variety of situations.  In most of AZ, you can fire them, not hire them, evict them, and in many cases refuse to serve someone, all just for being or looking gay.  AZ is on the list of 29 states where this is still true.
Interestingly, I think that so far all of the states that have tried this broad, useless, cookie-cutter, ALEC-led legislation are states with no gay protections.  In other words, states where you generally don't have to deal with gay people if you don't want to, where you can even get rid of them if you don't like them.  These legislators are trying to pass legislation that has no actual impact on the problem that they are imagining.
The reason why everyone thought that this was just a plain old anti-gay bill is because the legislator/s sponsoring it essentially said it was so.  But nothing in AZ state law would have actually allowed what happened in NM (where a business owner was sued, under NM state law, for discriminating against gays) to happen.  I'm sure this is an attempt to hedge against future equal rights findings, but as state law stands, AZ is already a bastion of anti-gay discrimination.
 
2014-02-27 10:16:34 AM  
I have a question.

I'm gay. I don't commit crimes. I work a regular job and pay all my taxes and bills. I don't bother anyone. I don't do anything to anyone that's improper as far as I know. I'm wholly unremarkable. I'm not part of a conspiracy and I never made a "choice" to adopt a "lifestyle" any more than any straight person made a "choice" to adopt their "lifestyle." I was just born and now live, trying my best to make an honest life, playing the hand I was dealt in life.

Why does about half the country think I'm satan incarnate for doing nothing more than existing?
 
2014-02-27 10:18:14 AM  
It reached that conclusion because the bill doesn't explicitly mention sexual orientation and Arizona law doesn't protect gay people through its anti-discrimination statute.

A new shiatty law isn't any less shiatty because the old laws were also shiatty.
 
2014-02-27 10:19:20 AM  
Dear  subby and  modmins:

upload.wikimedia.org

Sincerely,
Rhino_man
 
2014-02-27 10:19:30 AM  

menschenfresser: I have a question.

I'm gay. I don't commit crimes. I work a regular job and pay all my taxes and bills. I don't bother anyone. I don't do anything to anyone that's improper as far as I know. I'm wholly unremarkable. I'm not part of a conspiracy and I never made a "choice" to adopt a "lifestyle" any more than any straight person made a "choice" to adopt their "lifestyle." I was just born and now live, trying my best to make an honest life, playing the hand I was dealt in life.

Why does about half the country think I'm satan incarnate for doing nothing more than existing?


Because they're assholes.
 
2014-02-27 10:19:46 AM  

menschenfresser: I have a question.

I'm gay. I don't commit crimes. I work a regular job and pay all my taxes and bills. I don't bother anyone. I don't do anything to anyone that's improper as far as I know. I'm wholly unremarkable. I'm not part of a conspiracy and I never made a "choice" to adopt a "lifestyle" any more than any straight person made a "choice" to adopt their "lifestyle." I was just born and now live, trying my best to make an honest life, playing the hand I was dealt in life.

Why does about half the country think I'm satan incarnate for doing nothing more than existing?


Because they think you're icky. All the ther stuff is just trying to find justification
 
2014-02-27 10:19:57 AM  

menschenfresser: Why does about half the country think I'm satan incarnate for doing nothing more than existing?


because of a book of the bible that has been ignored for centuries as stupid, irrelevant, and outdated says so
 
2014-02-27 10:21:01 AM  
They're just regurgitating the right wing talking point that was distributed a day or two ago, *after* this blew up in their faces. It doesn't actually make any sense, but it provides all the cover an intellectually dishonest bigot needs to avoid embarrassment, as long as he stays in the echo chamber.
 
Displayed 50 of 328 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report