The privileges of American citizenship are so great and its duties so grave that we may well insist upon a good knowledge of every person applying for citizenship and a good knowledge by him of our institutions. We should not cease to be hospitable to immigration, but we should cease to be careless as to the character of it. — President Benjamin Harrison, Inaugural Address, March 4, 1889


Arizona: The Hypocrisy and Cowardice Capital of the U.S.

February 27, 2014   ·   By   ·   6 Comments

afraidBy now you’ve probably heard that Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, who seemed to be such a promising Republican just a few years ago, wimped out in the face of pressure from homosexual activists and their “useful idiots,” vetoing a bill to protect religious freedom in Arizona.

Contrary to the extreme distortion and outright lies about this bill, it was not a bill promoting discrimination at all. In fact, the bill was specifically designed to protect citizens against the most egregious form of discrimination: government-backed and enforced discrimination, the kind Democrats have been known for which tell private businesses what they can and can’t do, and which leverage the power of government to persecute a particular segment of society.

SB 1062 was designed to prevent the kind of discrimination and government-backed persecution by bigots which has ALREADY been happening in the United States in places like ColoradoWashingtonOregon, and New Mexico, In these places and elsewhere, homosexual activists have been leveraging the power of the government to persecute Christians and Christian business owners who have religious convictions about participating in counterfeit marriage ceremonies.

The founders of our nation considered conscience and religious freedom to be of paramount importance. Not only did many of the earliest European settlers come here specifically to escape government persecution because of their religious faith, when the United States was created, the Founders considered religious liberty so important that they guaranteed it in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  They also stated clearly how important these things were.

James Madison said “Government is instituted to protect property of every sort…[and] conscience is the most sacred of all property.”

John Adams said,The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If `Thou shalt not covet’ and `Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.”

Thomas Jefferson said, “No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience.”

John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, said, “Security under our constitution is given to the rights of conscience.”

To anyone even remotely familiar with the U.S. Constitution, our founding principles, religious freedom, and the dynamics of this issue, it should have been a no-brainer. Someone should not be allowed to come into a business and force them to participate in an activity or action they consider immoral, or force them to support that activity with their labor.  It should go without saying that they should not be allowed to leverage the power of government to force someone to violate their conscience and their religious convictions. Constitutional protections for religious freedom (and freedom in general) are being ignored by activists both in and out of government, and additional firewalls are needed to protect liberty.

Yet Governor Brewer, in vetoing this bill, has said that this is acceptable. It is now officially okay in Arizona for homosexual activists to force Christians and Christian business owners to support and participate in activities they consider morally abhorrent.

Of course, if Brewer (or anyone else with some backbone) had addressed this issue correctly, she would have told the NFL, Major League Baseball, Apple, Intel, Marriott Hotels, Starwood Hotels and Resorts, PetSmart, Yelp, Delta, American Airlines, the Hispanic National Bar Association and any other entity which threatened to withhold their business from Arizona if Brewer signed the bill into law…she should have told them what absolute and unmitigated hypocrites and bigots they were.  After all, these companies were doing EXACTLY what they claim Christian businesses should not be able to do: withhold services due to moral conviction. These companies obviously have a warped and perverted sense of moral conviction, but it was nevertheless a moral judgment the NFL et al. made in threatening to withhold their business from Arizona.

But they heap contempt on the notion that a Christian business should be allowed to withhold its business from an activity it considers immoral.

This is the utter height of hypocrisy.  How profoundly shameful that no one (that I’m aware of) has told them what complete hypocrites and bigots they all are.

But maybe I’ve been too hard on Arizona by calling it the hypocrisy and cowardice capital of the country. South Dakota is definitely in the running for that title.

After all, even with a Republican supermajority in the South Dakota Legislature (76% majority in the House and 80% in the Senate), South Dakota couldn’t even get a single one of three bills like this out of committee in the legislature.

Let me say that again: in a “Republican” supermajority, we couldn’t even get a bill to protect Christians out of committee, much less past one or both houses, to get it to the governor’s desk.

House Bill 1251: killed in a 12-0 “Republican” supermajority committee vote.

Senate Bill 66: killed in a 4-3 “Republican” supermajority committee vote.

Senate Bill 128: killed  in a 5-2 “Republican” supermajority committee vote.

Yeah, the more I think about it, maybe South Dakota should be crowned the Hypocrisy and Cowardice Capital of the U.S.

With “Republicans” like this to guard freedom and decency, it’s no wonder there effectively IS no Democrat Party in South Dakota; the GOP is doing all their work for them.

And it’s no wonder the American people don’t trust the Republican Party anymore: they’ve proven they’re completely useless against the liberal agenda.

This article is printed with the permission of the author(s). Opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of American Clarion or Dakota Voice LLC.

Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.

Similar Posts:

Bob Ellis has been the owner of media company Dakota Voice, LLC since 2005. He is a 10-year veteran of the United States Air Force, a political writer for the past decade, and has been involved in numerous election and public policy campaigns for nearly 20 years, including a Tea Party leader and organizer since 2009. He lives in Rapid City, South Dakota with his wife and two children.
Bob Ellis
View all articles by Bob Ellis
Leave a comment with your Facebook login
Print Friendly
  • Dawn D

    I’ve always operated my business from the notion that I have the inalienable right to refuse service to anyone - with caveats. A decision to refuse service has always been based upon attitude and demeanor. Excepting one case in the early eighties when an obviously very ill man wanted me to work on his car and told me he had AIDS. Of course that was when the transference of the condition had very little knowledge and very little fact based evidence of how it was transmitted. I appreciated him telling me about his plight and told him so. But, I also told him politely that I didn’t feel it would be safe for me to work on his car for him. He acknowledged his understanding and went on his way. I’ll always remember that incident and at times wish I could have made his life a little less burdensome by finding away to work on the car without the exposure I felt at the time. Now, I know that it could have been done safely and without issue. But that is knowledge that comes with good understanding.

    In California, the Unruh Civil Rights Act was passed here in the sixties. It dictates when and under what circumstances a business can legitimately discriminate services offered by business and other entities. Over the years it has expanded it’s inclusion of classes of individuals and groups who cannot be discriminated against without ‘good cause’. And, ‘good cause’ generally means issues that are disruptive to the normal course of operating and conducting business. Religious interpretive belief is actually, generally relative to ‘good cause’ in rights of refusal of requested services here, believe it or not. And, currently, there is a case of this having happened recently where a caterer has refused services for a same-sex wedding and it (so far) has been determined legal because of her religious holdings.

    The odd thing here is, our civil rights laws have not kept businesses who are owned by religious people from exercising their beliefs. We have lots of churches and lots of good religious folk who still worship openly, display it in their businesses and operate without worry over being sued. I personally do business with many businesses owned by religious people locally. People who know who I am and my history. They’ve never refused service to me based upon their religious convictions. And, I don’t ever expect that they will. Though, if they for some odd reason some day decided out of the blue to refuse me their service? I’d simply go elsewhere.

    Arizona did not need to create a ‘law’ that has no ‘crime’ to justify it’s creation. Arizona doesn’t even recognize LGBT in their list of protected classes of people. Therefore, openly discriminating against them IS currently legal making SB 1062 completely unnecessary. But, the way it was worded LGBT people are not the only ‘class’ of people that had cause for concern. Even Christians could have fallen victim to the belief systems of those practicing religious doctrine other than Christian. That’s how poorly this Bill was constructed.

    • Bob Ellis

      What you say is generally reasonable, including the fact that there is currently nothing in Arizona law giving special protection to homosexuals.

      However, as homosexual activists and their “useful idiot” allies in government repeatedly demonstrate, current laws and protections mean absolutely nothing to these barbarian raiders. If we have a U.S. Justice Department which will refuse to uphold the law, and we have an activist federal judiciary which is wreaking destruction on the very CONSTITUTIONS of several states, then there is no law that is out of reach of these destroyers.

      Which means good, rational people need to erect as many firewalls as possible to protect people and guard freedom. What we REALLY need to do is impeach each and every one of these government officials who are contemptuous of the rule of law, but in the meantime, we need every bulwark of defense we can build.

      Ultimately, it is not only an offense to religious liberty to FORCE a business owner to violate their conscience convictions, it is also an assault on property rights and freedom in general. A person’s business is just that: their property and their business. If a private business doesn’t like your haircut and wants to refuse your business, that is their RIGHT as the owner of that business. And it is YOUR right as a consumer with a bad haircut to take your business elsewhere.

      Using force to make someone serve you is the epitome of tyranny.

      • Dawn D

        To a degree I fully understand your concerns for religious freedom and property rights, including the property of conscience. And, I would support your right to discriminate willingly and openly of anyone you wish to. That is, so long as said discrimination doesn’t interfere with life giving (emergency) services, food services, or governmental aid services. Beyond that, have at it! Limiting ones income to contrived conscience is a prerogative that anyone should be able to embrace. In fact, the more that do so openly only make it easier for those targeted by said conscience to avoid conflict. So, go ahead and display your signs “Straight People Only” and see if it is conducive to expanding your business.

        Somehow, I have a notion that even many ‘straight people’ would find such to be distasteful and an uncomfortable environment to participate in. I myself, prefer to not know what the proclivities are of business owners, either gay, straight, or even religious. I personally feel it is not conducive to maximizing profit potential. Less negativity displayed within business equals more favorable bank accounts. It’s a tough economy out there. I’ll accept all customers who are respectful. That goes for the reddest of red-neck loggers to the most nutty of ‘furries’ (They’re a hoot. Crazy. But a hoot, no less.)

        By now, I think it should be obvious that we’ve passed through the cross-roads of cultural/social direction in this country. Same-sex marriage will be the legal in all 50 States soon enough. And as much as I am certain that you and others would like to stand on the notion that it is ‘counterfeit’ and a ‘threat’ to your religious freedom, I also feel certain that the creation of laws to protect a specific act of discriminatory power is a slippery slope that can lead to unintended consequences. Those consequences can lead to isolation and financial loss of un-imagined proportions today.

        The Constitution IS clear, “…no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. Equally clear is the power of limitation of said “exercise”. Reynolds v. United States from 1878 which said plainly: “Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices.” Thus, it may be legal and possible to limit the discriminatory ‘exercise’ of religious practice if there is compelling governmental interest in doing so. That compelling governmental interest may be evolving as we speak to be inclusive of LGBT people in the same fashion that it found in “separate but equal” cases of the early civil rights era. Not that they are the same - so to speak. But, rather that the need to recognize the compelling governmental interest is - similar. Attempts at the creation of laws such as SB 1062 only serve to fuel the search and ultimate establishment for that compelling interest.

        • Bob Ellis

          I would agree regarding life-and-death services such as hospitals offer. Government also has an obligation to render services equally, behavioral issues not withstanding.

          Of course most people would consider a “Straight People Only” sign silly if not outright negative. However, virtually no one would do such a thing. I would venture that even the examples of tyranny I’ve cited involve businesses that would not do something like that. You’re a homosexual who wants to buy cookies at a Christian business? I’m virtually certain the business would have no problem selling you cookies.

          But when you DEMAND that a business provide services that facilitate an immoral activity (e.g. the counterfeiting of marriage), you’ve entered an altogether different realm.

          The only way counterfeit marriage will be legal in all states is if activist judges are allowed to continue their reign of tyranny against the rule of law. In fact, had Mitt Romney put his actions behind his empty words, there would probably still be ZERO states where it is allowed, because Romney sticking his thumb up his rear end and going along with activist judges in Mass. is what started the dominoes.

          I believe as more Americans start to see through all th is “tolerance” and “equality” BS (and many already are), the tide will reverse, and sanity will return to America.

          Based on the events of this past week, the creation of such laws as SB 1062 only serve to expose the cowardice of “Republicans” and the hypocrisy of the Left.

          That exposure is what will eventually wake America up and reverse this tide of insanity.

Featured Articles

Barack Obama and Ted Kennedy (Photo credit: Sage Ross)

EB-5 Program a Ted Kennedy Brainchild

Bob Ellis

The EB-5 "cash-for-visas" program has generated a lot of controversy and discussion in South Dakota over the past couple of years. Did you know the EB-5 program that some "Republicans" have embraced was created by a Democrat Ted Kennedy bill?


False Prophets Setting America at War with God

Bradlee Dean

We can see in America today that the church is countering their very purpose on this earth. Rather than the light reproving the darkness (Ephesians 5:11), we now have the church spreading the darkness as they attempt to put out the light.


The Entrepreneur and Liberty

Bob Ellis

If you are a regular reader of American Clarion, odds are that you will listen to what this woman says and have a "Duh!" reaction. After all, for most of America's history, virtually all Americans understood the things she says almost instinctively.

Emblem of the Islamic_State in Iraq and Sham (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Shifting Sands and Mirages

Victor Sharpe

The Commander in Chief of the USA has been dithering and having endless fun on the golf course while a Sunni horde of jihadists and savages in the Middle East has been allowed to swell its numbers to 35,000 with more joining every week. At the same time, and in direct consequence to the deeply suspicious procrastination of President Obama, the Muslim head choppers who comprise the so-called Islamic State (IS) have seized a massive 144,000 square kilometers of Middle Eastern land from Raqqa in the north of Syria as far as north west of Baghdad in Iraq.


The Good Liberal Samaritan

Bob Ellis

Liberals: their priorities are always government health care's priorities are always straight.


"We don't intend to turn the Republican Party over to the traitors in the battle just ended. We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the party over to the so-called moderates wouldn't make any sense at all." - Ronald Reagan, Nov. 10, 1964