Just Some Souls Whose Intentions are Good

What a bunch of chickenshit crybabies:

Three Republican senators who voted for Senate Bill 1062 say they made a bad decision in a rushed process and are now asking Gov. Jan Brewer to veto the right to refuse service bill.

“We feel it was a solution in search of a problem,” Sen. Bob Worsley, R-Mesa, said in an impromptu news conference outside the state Senate. He was joined by Sen. Steve Pierce, R-Prescott.

The two, along with Senate Majority Whip Adam Driggs, R-Phoenix, sent Brewer a letter Monday morning asking for a veto.

“While our sincere intent in voting for this bill was to create a shield for all citizens’ religious liberties, the bill has instead been mischaracterized by its opponents as a sword for religious intolerance,” the three wrote. “These allegations are causing our state immeasurable harm.”

Bigots are always misunderstood, aren’t they?

Share On Facebook
Share On Twitter
Share On Google Plus
Share On Pinterest
Share On Reddit

126 replies
  1. 1
    BGinCHI says:

    Shorter homophobes: Chamber of Commerce Rules Everything Around Me.

  2. 2

    So it has been “mischaracterized by its opponents” (i.e., it’s a perfectly good bill in their eyes), but they want it vetoed? Good grief, what cowards.

  3. 3
    Cervantes says:

    At least they are trying to undo a mistake.

    Not everyone does.

  4. 4
    RaflW says:

    No you jerks, the bill itself is causing irreparable harm. And, yet, I read this a.m. that Georgia is considering a similar bill.

    Stupidity is contagious.

  5. 5
    Scott S. says:

    It’s almost like “Jim Crow for gays” just isn’t testing very well…

  6. 6
    catclub says:

    @Cervantes: Not everyone even realizes that some of their mistakes are mistakes. At least these guys did.

  7. 7
    Cervantes says:

    A solution in search of a problem? That makes as much sense as an answer in search of a question. And whoever that is at #3, it isn’t me.

  8. 8

    @Scott S.: yes – it’s like they missed the last twenty years or something.

  9. 9
    Cervantes says:

    @catclub: Exactly.

  10. 10
    RaflW says:

    I also saw a comment that perhaps part of the secret intent of the bill was to codify the notion of corporations having religious rights/protections, in effect furthering the notion advanced in Citizens United.

    The way this bill was apparently rushed through with minimal hearings and waived procedures (if my cursory reading of the bill’s progress is correct) suggests the sort of ALEC-like tactic of hoping to move bills fast before opposition mounts.

  11. 11
    RaflW says:

    Oh, and Brewer is apparently in no hurry, if her comment from the Governor’s confab is right. Great job drawing out the negative attention for your state, Jan.

    Do the right thing and do it now.

  12. 12
    Barry says:

    @Knight of Nothing: “…yes – it’s like they missed the last twenty years or something. ”

    More like ‘they really miss what it was like fifty years ago, and want it back'[1]

    [1] Or, in Arizona time, the way that they’ve got it now.

  13. 13
    Cervantes says:

    @Cervantes: True.

  14. 14
    LanceThruster says:

    Maybe they need to be kept away from sharp objects…and legislating.

  15. 15
    dedc79 says:

    @catclub: The lingering question for me, though, is the nature of the “mistake” they’re admitting to. “We feel it is a solution in search of a problem” signals to me that they’re thinking “Hey, we can already discriminate against gay couples under existing law, so why do something in addition that is only going to hurt the business interests of Arizona?” That’s not particularly reassuring.

  16. 16
    Gex says:

    Why are they getting credited for realizing this is a mistake? Did they just now realize this is a solution looking for a problem? If so what changed?

    Is it that the bill is fine but just mischaracterized? Fix the misperception then. If the bill doesn’t do what the detractors say it goes, why does it need to be vetoed?

    This bill is bad. It was all along. They knew it but they have to be able to tell their “values” voters they voted for the anti-gay bill. That will show up in their score card.

    Now they don’t want to suffer the consequences of their votes. They didn’t make a mistake and own up to it. They’re playing a game of chicken and bailing out before they get hurt.

  17. 17
    Mnemosyne says:

    I think it’s also the last-minute oh shit realization that the bill will apply to non-Christians as well that convinced them to try and kill it. Can’t have those Mooslim cab drivers refusing to transport people’s dogs.

  18. 18
    Cervantes says:

    @dedc79: It may not be reassuring but it is an opportunity.

  19. 19
    evolved beyond the fist mistermix says:

    @RaflW: I’m sure from a purely political level she’s wondering why she should take the heat from the base for vetoing the bill. I have no sympathy for her, but nobody likes cleaning up someone else’s mess.

  20. 20
    dmsilev says:

    And then there’s this, which is possibly even worse:

    A Republican lobbyist in Washington wants to introduce legislation in Congress that would prohibit gay people from playing in the National Football League — and he says he’s already lining up congressional sponsors.
    […]
    “I felt that if the NFL doesn’t have any morals, and people like [NFL Commissioner] Roger Goodell, who are just go-along-get-along guys, just want to appease advertisers, appease corporate America and all that stuff,” Burkman told the Huffington Post, “I figured, well, it is time for conservatives in Congress to step in and define morality for them.”

    “This is not about bigotry. It is about common decency and civility,” he said. “Society is moving to a point where we are going to have unisex bathrooms and the next generation thinks that is OK.”

    No, this is about bigotry.

  21. 21
    Davo says:

    @Cervantes: No they’re not. They’re taking heat from their donors and running for cover. Fuck them. They’re just fucking cowards, full stop.

  22. 22
    Mnemosyne says:

    @RaflW:

    IIRC, Brewer’s had some run-ins with her legislature recently with them bad-mouthing her in the press as being not conservative enough, so I don’t really blame her if she wants to make them suffer a little. Really, you guys want me to veto this? But you were really hot on getting it passed! Are you sure you want me to veto it? Say please …

    IOW, she doesn’t want them to be able to lay all the blame on her.

  23. 23
    Cervantes says:

    @dmsilev: One would think it’s exactly common decency and civility that make unisex rest-rooms no big deal.

  24. 24
    RaflW says:

    @evolved beyond the fist mistermix: Interesting. Certainly, an enterprising journalist could easily write an “AZ Senate GOP in Disarray” article.

    Maybe the Chamber of Concrete can muster the energy to get a re-vote in the Senate and save Brewer the hassle .. though I’d sure as heck not hold my breath!

  25. 25
    Mnemosyne says:

    @dmsilev:

    So, just to be clear, Burkman wants the government to step in and impose morality on private businesses?

    They really couldn’t make their hypocrisy more obvious, could they?

  26. 26
    gbear says:

    @catclub: I don’t think they realize that they made a mistake. They still think it’s a well intentioned bill to protect christians who don’t want to have to coexist with teh gay. All they know is that they caused a shitstorm that’s bigger than they can control and they want out. If it gets vetoed, they’ll still think it was a good bill that got shot down.

  27. 27
    Cervantes says:

    @Gex: You may be right in every particular, it’s possible, but what would you have them do now? Remain silent?

  28. 28
    RaflW says:

    @dmsilev: Awesome! These guys have no clue how foolish they look advancing this sort of thing.

    Minimal government! Except we’ll tell the NFL who they can hire!
    First Principles my ass.

  29. 29
    the Conster says:

    The spectacle of watching the Republicans implement sharia law everywhere they can by calling it religious freedom has redlined my irony meter into the next century.

  30. 30
    Scratch says:

    Some day ALEC is going to spit out a hybrid of this bill with the stand-your-ground laws and make it okay for people to shoot others if they feel their religious beliefs are being threatened.

  31. 31
    West of the Cascades says:

    @dmsilev: Oh, please, God, let them try to do this. Please let’s get an official list of bigots in Congress from the list of sponsors and co-sponsors.

    BTW, most of the restaurants in Portland have unisex bathrooms. Somehow, we survive, and decency and civility generally reign — often we even remember to wipe any drips off the toilet bowl and put the lid down …

  32. 32
    RaflW says:

    @gbear: If it gets vetoed, they’ll still think it was a good bill that got shot down.

    They’ll have a sob story to fundraise/grift off for years…

  33. 33
    Cervantes says:

    @Davo: Anger is justified but it can blind us. In this case their reversal may be an opportunity to make progress. (See comment 15 for a hint.)

  34. 34
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Cervantes:

    I don’t mind the unisex bathrooms where everyone gets their own little cubicle with a toilet, sink, and locking door — heck, if you use the public ladies’ room in a really fancy hotel (like the Drake in Chicago), that’s how they’re set up.

    “Ally McBeal”-style, though? Not so much. Especially if the dance routine is required.

  35. 35
    Lee says:

    Another issue with this bill is also from a strictly business point of view.

    If I’m scheduled to work on a Sunday, I might become very religious about the day of rest. Sure, I’ll show up to work and clock in. But doing any actual work would be against my religious beliefs.

  36. 36
    dmsilev says:

    @Mnemosyne: Not to mention, he would require the NFL to investigate the sexual orientation of all of their players. I’m *sure* that will end well….

  37. 37
    Cervantes says:

    @West of the Cascades: That’s right.

    How are you doing, by the way?

  38. 38
    piratedan says:

    @Mnemosyne: there may be an element to that, especially since Brewer ate a shitburger of “bad press” from wingnutopia for expanding the Medicaid rolls when the ACA was rolled out. No Az exchange but at least she conceded that the Medicaid expansion was simply good business to not leave the money on the table, especially with a GOP lege which would sooner lose a limb than raise revenue unless they could find a way to make the pohrs do it.

    The thing is, Brewer may very well sign this thing because we’re not exactly sure that Cactus Barbie isn’t just THAT crazy, after all, she is the finger-wagglinglingest cowgirl this side of the Pecos. Her tiff with the lege was to get them to accede to her wishes more than any real issue with the parcel of derp that comes out of that august body of public servants.

    The thing about the bill, is that it’s the usual stealth nonsense from ALEC. They want owners to be able to discretely inform customers that we “don’t serve your kind here” making it a source of power and shaming versus posting it on the door and owning their bigotry (one of the provisions introduced by Dems was to have those that chose to not serve gays post it on their doors).

  39. 39
    RaflW says:

    The bigger picture, I think, is these ‘religious exemption’ bills popping up everywhere red are connected to the SCOTUS fight that is trying to let corporations refuse to fund birth control, a private patient routine medical care decision.

    The right is working very hard to extend the corporation as person argument, whether allowing it to object to a customer or an employee’s rights to autonomy and dignity.

    It is a very dangerous direction, irrespective of the absurdity, bigotry and delicious backlash.

  40. 40
    Roger Moore says:

    @RaflW:

    Oh, and Brewer is apparently in no hurry, if her comment from the Governor’s confab is right. Great job drawing out the negative attention for your state, Jan.

    She’s trying to work over the antis for some campaign contributions before the actual veto.

  41. 41
    Chris T. says:

    @Cervantes:

    And whoever that is at #3, it isn’t me.

    How about we just call all commenter-s here “Cervantes”, to avoid confusion?

  42. 42
    Penus says:

    @evolved beyond the fist mistermix:

    Say what you will about Jan Brewer – and there are a whole lot of bad things you can say about her – but she generally does a decent job of keeping the shitheads that populate the AZ legislature in check (the “papers, please” law being a glaring exception). They passed a similar bill to this one last year, and she vetoed it.

    Looking at it another way…what does it say about the AZ Republicans that Jan Freakin’ Brewer is the voice of reason?

  43. 43
    pharniel says:

    This reminds me of the bill out of LA I think allowing charter schools to be religious and have vouchers – which the Teajahddies were all in favor of….until someone decided to open a Madrassa.

    Then the lights came on…

  44. 44
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    Oh, someone pointed out to these microbrains/microdicks that the broad consequences of their tantrum on the ghey might bite them in the ass?

    Surprise, surprise, surprise!

    OT from Noisemax, but couldn’t let this one go by:

    Cheney: Obama Favors Food Stamps Over Military

    Would that be draft-dodging chickenhawk Dick Cheney by any chance? The guy who did everything he could to avoid being in uniform when it might have disrupted his “other priorities”? The guy who clearly knows jack shit about the economic stimulus, and pure humanitarianism, of the food stamp program, as opposed to the killing brown people high that he indulged in the first decade of the third millennium? That Dick Cheney?

    Harold Ramis and Betty’s mom pass on, but this vile entity still is able to provide asshole quotes to Noisemax. There is no fucking justice.

  45. 45
    Cervantes says:

    @Cervantes: Fine by me.

  46. 46
    The Red Pen says:

    The governor of Maryland suggested that they should move the 2015 Super Bowl out of Arizona.

    I think there that was just plausible enough to create panic in the Arizona establishment.

  47. 47
    Davo says:

    @Cervantes: Of course its an oppurtunity for progress. You can say that every single time the GOP has to backpeddle or take a backseat on anything they ever do. But lets not give them a pat on the back, as if they’re trying to make something right, when they could give a shit about “right” and are obviously merely ass-covering.

  48. 48
    Scott S. says:

    @dmsilev: That’s beautiful. The whole party is in full meltdown mode.

    The only thing the Repubs are going to want to talk about in the next election is how much they hate gay people and how much they hate Hispanics and how much they want to be allowed to shoot black people and how they want to impeach Obama even though he’s leaving office. They’re letting the bigotry and stupidity all hang out where everyone can see.

  49. 49
    SiubhanDuinne says:

    @Mnemosyne:
    @dmsilev:

    Did you notice at the end of the article that Burkman’s brother is gay (and very opposed to what his asshole sibling is trying to do).

    Which reminds me, I wonder how the Cheney sisters are getting along these days?

  50. 50
    jibeaux says:

    @The Red Pen: That, and every tourist and C of C type place in the state came out against it. For “principles”, they sure do vanish when money comes into it, don’t they?

  51. 51
    Jay C says:

    @dmsilev:

    “This is not about bigotry. It is about common decency and civility,” he said. “Society is moving to a point where we are going to have unisex bathrooms and the next generation thinks that is OK.”

    Jezuz H. Christ on a three-wheeled bicycle! These assclowns are still jabbering on about “unisex bathrooms”?? I remember this moronic argument being trotted out forty years ago as an “argument” against “Womens’ Lib” – that somehow, gender integration of sanitary facilities was the inevitable Final Descent Into Hell of considering even the slightest alteration of sex-role attitudes – it was a dumb argument then, and hasn’t gotten any better with age.

    And yes, the “next generation” is going to have different attitudes towards things: their notion of “common decency and civility” will translate to “be sure to leave the seat down“….

  52. 52
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Jay C:

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but most residences have nothing but unisex bathrooms.

    Somehow, the fabric of society survived the creation of indoor plumbing.

  53. 53
    Napoleon says:

    @RaflW:

    The way this bill was apparently rushed through with minimal hearings and waived procedures (if my cursory reading of the bill’s progress is correct) suggests the sort of ALEC-like tactic of hoping to move bills fast before opposition mounts.

    ALEC just has to be behind these bills and amazingly I have seen no one running a blog or in a paper speculate that is the case.

  54. 54
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Jay C:

    Guys are going to be very shocked to discover how many annoying women insist on “hovering” over the seat in a public bathroom and not cleaning up after themselves (because now the seat is dirty, don’t’cha know). I still haven’t figured out why they think that I, the next woman who uses that stall, should be in charge of cleaning up their urine. Eeeewww!

  55. 55
    SiubhanDuinne says:

    @dmsilev:

    Wow! This Burkman guy has quite the history.

  56. 56
    khead says:

    “I would like to join the Chairman in commending you… Mr. Worsley/Pierce/Driggs… for the soul-searching fortitude displayed in your statement”.

  57. 57
    Gex says:

    @Cervantes: No, I’d have them do what they are doing, just not have people credit them with anything more than scurrying around to save them from themselves.

  58. 58
    RaflW says:

    @Napoleon: My guess is these bills are being run by an ALEC graduate or an org that has hired some ex-ALEC operatives.

  59. 59
    Napoleon says:

    @The Red Pen:

    The governor of Maryland suggested that they should move the 2015 Super Bowl out of Arizona.

    Remember, the NFL has actually once in the past moved it from AZ for a similar reason (I think MLK day)

  60. 60
    jibeaux says:

    @Napoleon: I’d actually be surprised if that were the case. ALEC is all about making things easy on bidness. A little bit of tough on crime thrown in for fun. Not so much this religious stuff, as you can see from the bidness types in AZ who suddenly woke up.

  61. 61
    beergoggles says:

    The republican from Mesa is shitting bricks that Apple will cancel their glass factory plans in Mesa that was gonna bring in 700 jobs..

    I wish Apple would cancel their plans for it even if the bill gets vetoed citing unpredictable legislature.

  62. 62
    Gin & Tonic says:

    @Jay C: After decades of marriage and female children, I still can’t figure out why “leave the seat down” is such a huge issue. If you want the seat up, raise it; if you want the seat down, lower it. The hinge works both ways with minimal effort.

  63. 63
    dmsilev says:

    @Penus:

    Looking at it another way…what does it say about the AZ Republicans that Jan Freakin’ Brewer is the voice of reason?

    As someone pointed out yesterday, you can’t spell CRAZY without R-AZ.

  64. 64
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Gin & Tonic:

    You lived in a house with small children and you have no idea why the lid should be left down?

    You must have had the most well-behaved children in the world. And no pets tall enough to jump onto the toilet bowl.

  65. 65
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @RaflW:

    A sort of ALEC of “religious rights”, eager to trample on the rights of anyone who isn’t a “bible-believing Christian”.

  66. 66
    Gex says:

    @beergoggles: That’s not a bad point. Russia waited until after they were awarded the Sochi Olympics to pass their Charter 6 violating anti-gay laws, creating a huge headache for the IOC. Apple could very well be subjected to the same sort of situation.

  67. 67
    Xjmueller says:

    @Chris T.: @Chris T.: @Chris T.: @Chris T.: Bruce, instead?

  68. 68
    SatanicPanic says:

    @Mnemosyne: Bummer fact of the day- some dudes do that too.

  69. 69
    Teresa says:

    Republican men can never ever be wrong. It is impossible for them to say, “Yes I was an asshole. I need to clean up after myself.” Instead they raise bullshit meter to such a level than even a 5 year old lies better than they do.

  70. 70
    Teresa says:

    Republican men can never ever be wrong. It is impossible for them to say, “Yes I was an asshole. I need to clean up after myself.” Instead they raise bullshit meter to such a level than even a 5 year old lies better than they do.

  71. 71
    Mnemosyne says:

    @SatanicPanic:

    Well, you kinda expect it from dudes (sorry, guys!) because you don’t always have to sit down. Women always have to sit down, so it’s extra rude to expect others to clean up after you in a public place.

  72. 72
    beergoggles says:

    @RaflW: The bills are being written and pushed by the American Religious Freedom Program, a subsidiary of the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

  73. 73
    feebog says:

    Senator Steve Pierce was interviewed by Chris Hayes last night. It was apparent that he was now opposing the bill because of the backlash from the Chamber of Commerce and big businesses like Marriot and Apple. He doesn’t see anything wrong with the bill, does not consider it discriminatory in any way. The guy is a fucking moron and the voters who elected him are fucking morons.

  74. 74
    Cervantes says:

    @Mnemosyne: Er … “lid” ≠ “seat.”

  75. 75
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Cervantes:

    Can’t put the lid down without also putting the seat down, unless your toilet is a very different configuration from mine. :-)

  76. 76
    NorthLeft12 says:

    @dmsilev: The way they investigate all of the draft eligible players and free agents, I am sure the NFL teams know exactly what the sexual preferences of their players are. I was about to say they don’t hand out multi-million dollar contracts to anybody, but like any NFL fan I can name more than a few players who received huge contracts and unsurprisingly did not live up to it. Just like half the CEOs and other over paid business moguls.

  77. 77
    Cervantes says:

    @Mnemosyne: Except that no one was talking about lids.

  78. 78
    ShadeTail says:

    Mr. Steve Benen is speculating that the three chickenshit cowards are actually acting on Gov. Brewer’s directive, giving her some cover where she’ll “have to” veto it.

  79. 79
    danielx says:

    “We feel it was a solution in search of a problem,” Sen. Bob Worsley, R-Mesa, said in an impromptu news conference outside the state Senate. He was joined by Sen. Steve Pierce, R-Prescott.

    Yes, it truly is a problem when Those People (assign whatever label you wish) have the audacity to want to be treated like rich white heterosexuals. These bastards want to return to the fifties*, that golden age when white men ran everything (they still do, mostly), had good jobs for the asking (no longer), and women, children, nigras, and meskins by god did as they were told, or else. It just hasn’t been the same for them since passage of the Civil Rights Act, and then those goddamned hippies!

    *That’s those who don’t want to return to the 1850s, of course, and there are a significant number who think that would be just fine as well.

  80. 80
    catclub says:

    Speaking of learning from mistakes:
    http://economix.blogs.nytimes......overy-act/

    Too many people pointed out most of those problems – especially counting tax cuts as stimulus, while it was going on. That fact that part of the AMT fix was included was something I did not know, and particularly egregious. It was going to happen anyway.

    The part about having goalposts – which they did not do, is also obvious.
    “We are going to keep doing this until unemployment falls to X” is just not that hard.

  81. 81
    Randy P says:

    @Jay C:

    I remember this moronic argument being trotted out forty years ago as an “argument” against “Womens’ Lib”

    Specifically it was used against the Equal Rights Amendment. Successfully.

  82. 82
    Violet says:

    @dmsilev:

    “Society is moving to a point where we are going to have unisex bathrooms and the next generation thinks that is OK.”

    Do these people have gender-segregated bathrooms in their own homes? No? Then guess what–they have “unisex bathrooms” and think it’s okay. What a bunch of idiots.

  83. 83
    danielx says:

    @Villago Delenda Est:

    Yes, and the sonofabitch is even looking healthier these days. Must have upped his intake of pureed Afghan babies quaffed from the skull of an Iraqi child.

  84. 84
    Howlin Wolfe says:

    @catclub: It would be more courageous if they dropped the “misunderstood bill” bullshit and said it’s wrong wrong wrong to use a bogus “freedom of religion” argument to protect bigotry. But these guys’ courage stops after taking care of the chamber of commerce.

  85. 85
    Penus says:

    @NorthLeft12: Guarantee that they do. That’s one reason Michael Sam came out when he did – trying to get ahead of it.

  86. 86
    jon says:

    @Villago Delenda Est: I don’t know how Dick Cheney doesn’t know about the tremendous overlap of people in the military, their families, and SNAP. Of course, he was too busy making his Dick Dynasty to actually serve among the enlisted folk back in his day, so maybe he doesn’t know that not everyone in the military makes do with a lieutenant colonel’s salary or better.

  87. 87
    boatboy_srq says:

    @BGinCHI: Equally shorter homophobes: Bigotry is Expensive. Hoodathunkit.

  88. 88
  89. 89
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Cervantes:

    You are taking obsolete gender humor way too literally.

  90. 90
    Cervantes says:

    @Mnemosyne: No, that’s the other Cervantes.

    Meanwhile, you are as literate as ever.

  91. 91
    Mike in NC says:

    @danielx: Well, all Republicans really fall into one of those two categories, either pining for the fictional 1950s of their youth, or the 1850s depicted in “Gone With The Wind”.

  92. 92
    Cervantes says:

    @Davo:

    Of course its an oppurtunity for progress. You can say that every single time the GOP has to backpeddle or take a backseat on anything they ever do. But lets not give them a pat on the back, as if they’re trying to make something right, when they could give a shit about “right” and are obviously merely ass-covering.

    You misunderstand. I was not clear enough.

    Like I said, anger is justified — these people did an awful thing — they’ve done many awful things — and yet anger can also blind us to opportunity. For example, if you watch the interview that the AZ Senate president did with Chris Hayes last night, you will find Hayes asking a number of good questions that the Senator did his best to evade. If someone could find a way to put those questions (and follow-ups) to him and his colleagues again, that would be a good thing. The more they are forced to explain themselves, the better for us.

  93. 93
    NorthLeft12 says:

    Could someone clarify exactly what is meant by a “unisex bathroom”?

    When I first heard the term, I thought it meant a bathroom that is used by both sexes at the same time, but from later comments it seems that it means that it is a bathroom that can be used by either sex at different times. Which, up here in Canada, is what we call a bathroom.
    I have a couple in my house, but then we are all socialists here in the great white north.

  94. 94
    Cervantes says:

    @NorthLeft12:

    When I first heard the term, I thought it meant a bathroom that is used by both sexes at the same time, but from later comments it seems that it means that it is a bathroom that can be used by either sex at different times.

    The term is used for both.

  95. 95
    Jebediah, RBG says:

    @danielx:
    I’ve never really cared much for prank humor – Candid Camera, if I recall, was usually pretty gentle, but more modern versions seem a little too mean-spirited for my taste. But in Dick “Dick” Cheney’s case, I could get over it. I would love to see someone slip him a mickey and tell him, when he wakes, “Mr. Cheney, we have arrived at The Hague. Your escort will be here momentarily.”
    It would be almost as great as if it happened for real.

  96. 96
    Jebediah, RBG says:

    @jon:

    I don’t know how Dick Cheney doesn’t know about the tremendous overlap of people in the military, their families, and SNAP.

    I think you might be conflating “knows” with “gives a shit.”

  97. 97
    NonyNony says:

    @Knight of Nothing:

    So it has been “mischaracterized by its opponents” (i.e., it’s a perfectly good bill in their eyes), but they want it vetoed? Good grief, what cowards.

    I was just thinking that when you have a law that you think is a good one, and your opponents say mean things about it, it’s best to just throw it away and let your opponents win. That’s how politics works, right?

    In all seriousness – they’re cowards in the sense that they got shaken by the Chamber of Commerce and told “WTF ARE YOU FUCKERS THINKING????” as they suddenly realize that these kinds of laws open themselves up to abuse (and lawsuits!) while also telling every progressively minded company in the country (i.e. most of them these days) that they’re not welcome in the state because they might employ a gay person.

    It’s lose-lose for the Chamber folks – bad for business from a pointless lawsuit perspective (as they now need to cover their asses to make sure that every “religious objection” one of their workers could come up with is covered) but also from an “attracting new companies to the state” perspective. “Sure you might have low wages, but our Director of HR might be denied service in the ER because she’s gay? Pass – we’ll stay in California.”

  98. 98
    Jay C says:

    @NorthLeft12:

    Which, up here in Canada, is what we call a bathroom.

    Well, here too: but in the sense that sexist assclowns use the term, it leans towards the “both sexes at the same time” interpretation: which, for some reason, tends to get said sexists bent out of shape nearly as much as the notion of paying men and women equally for equal work. Something to do with peoples’ built-in attitudes about dealing with bodily elimination functions, I suppose, even though in real life, “unisex” public bathrooms are invariably “either sex at different times” – just like at home.

  99. 99
    Cassidy says:

    The real question in all of this is 1) How can Cervantes, Mandalay, Chickenshit, etc. blame Obama and 2) Did he do enough leading?

  100. 100
    NonyNony says:

    @Jay C:

    even though in real life, “unisex” public bathrooms are invariably “either sex at different times” – just like at home.

    The “unisex bathroom” in the sense of “men and women using the same public bathroom at the same time” has been a scare tactic for the slippery slope that Equal Rights legislation would eventually culminate in. I’ve always assumed that it started as a scare tactic against the women pushing for equal rights – as in there was originally a veiled threat of rape implied in the “unisex bathroom” scare tactic.

    Now I think it marks someone out as being old enough to remember when Soviet Russia was scary instead of just a punchline.

  101. 101
    Robert M. says:

    @NonyNony: I don’t disagree, but it’s worth pointing out that the AZ bill and others like it aren’t just a problem for anyone who’s gay (or has gay friends, family, or other loved ones). It basically says that as a service provider, I can get away with denying service to anyone as long as I claim afterwards that I was acting out of a sincere religious belief. So if I’m Catholic, the cable guy can leave if he sees a cross on the wall; the Catholic cashier at Walgreens can refuse to ring up my condoms; the Muslim salesman at Verizon can refuse to speak with a woman whose head is uncovered; arguably, an atheist wedding photographer could refuse service to a nice Baptist couple. Almost anyone can get away with refusing to work with just about anyone, as long as you claim afterward that the transaction or association was a burden upon your exercise of religion.

  102. 102
    Svensker says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    Girlfriend! That is my biggest pet peeve in the entire universe! ! !

    If you wanna squat, clean up after yourself, dang nab it.

  103. 103
    Svensker says:

    @Gin & Tonic:

    And you’ve never gone into a dark bathroom in the night and sat down on the toilet that had the lid up? Wham!

  104. 104
    drkrick says:

    The difference is that most home bathrooms are serial, while many public bathrooms are parallel. My guess is that most of these folks are a little squicked out by having other people of the same gender in a public facility with them. Opposite gender people is just a complete freakout for them.

  105. 105
    kc says:

    So it IS possible to embarrass them.

  106. 106
    Interrobang says:

    Oh, good, I’m glad to see my memory didn’t deceive me about the “unisex bathrooms” thing. Do these reactionary jerks ever come up with any arguments that aren’t so old they have dinosaur tracks on them?

  107. 107
    Cervantes says:

    @NonyNony:

    The “unisex bathroom” in the sense of “men and women using the same public bathroom at the same time” has been …

    … unremarkable at MIT for decades. The first ones were set up in the late ’70s; and then more were built as new co-ed dormitories were constructed.

  108. 108
    JustRuss says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    Can’t have those Mooslim cab drivers refusing to transport people’s dogs.

    Even worse, what if the mooslim checkout clerk refuses to ring up your bacon? Won’t somebody please think of the bacon?

  109. 109
    NonyNony says:

    @Cervantes:

    … unremarkable at MIT for decades. The first ones were set up in the late ’70s; and then more were built as new co-ed dormitories were constructed.

    Well, yeah. Back when “Soviet Russia” was scary instead of just a punchline.

    These guys don’t give up on an anecdote, even when they’re loooooooong past their sell-by date. See any conservative who still rails about the poor service at the post office.

  110. 110
    Davo says:

    @Cervantes: I guess, dude. I mean, good on Chris Hayes, but who’s really watching besides you and me?

    And your supposing people care and adhere to constructs like logic, evidence, morality… etc… Methinks you suppose too much.

    I get your point. But still, the kudos go to the Chris Hayes’ that take advantage of the oppurtunity. Not to the dipshits that afford us these on the reg.

  111. 111
    Cervantes says:

    @NonyNony:

    Well, yeah. Back when “Soviet Russia” was scary instead of just a punchline.

    Sure, I know what you mean.

    (On the other hand, even in those days — especially after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan — there were reliable analysts who figured out that the SU was not long for this world.)

    These guys don’t give up on an anecdote, even when they’re loooooooong past their sell-by date. See any conservative who still rails about the poor service at the post office.

    Yes.

    For what it’s worth, the service at my local post offices (Boston area) has always been good.

  112. 112
    NonyNony says:

    @Robert M.:

    It basically says that as a service provider, I can get away with denying service to anyone as long as I claim afterwards that I was acting out of a sincere religious belief.

    Oh yes. But it ALSO opens up anyone who employs said service provider for lawsuits coming and going.

    For example – suppose I’m Catholic and I order cable. And the cable guy comes out and, due to his sincere religious belief that Catholics are the spawn of the Whore of Babylon, refuses to install my cable. Now the cable company’s getting sued – not in state court (because the state law says this is perfectly legal) but in Federal court, where I have a pretty strong religious discrimination case that it’s likely that various groups like the ACLU and maybe the FFRF are going to help me with.

    Or maybe I anticipate this and hire dozens of extra cable guys to cover the jobs where religious objections are going to be a problem. So now I’m either spending money covering my ass or I’m spending money on lawsuits. Neither of which are things that the service provider’s bosses want to be spending money on. And they can’t even fire the guy for not doing his job because then they get sued in state court for violating his Freedom of Religion(tm).

    It’s lose-lose for the business guys. What they want is exactly the opposite – that worker bees should not be allowed to let their personal beliefs interfere with their jobs in any way shape or form. This kind of thing is the last thing that businesses of sufficient size want to deal with. It’s only the bigots who also own small businesses who would even think that something like this might be a good idea.

  113. 113
    cckids says:

    @Gin & Tonic:

    After decades of marriage and female children, I still can’t figure out why “leave the seat down” is such a huge issue. If you want the seat up, raise it; if you want the seat down, lower it. The hinge works both ways with minimal effort.

    I follow in my mom’s steps; everybody just close the damn thing before you flush & leave it that way. Equality!!

  114. 114
    Robert Sneddon says:

    I am reminded of being in a Japanese public toilet alongside all the salarymen at the urinals and having to hop from one foot to another as the obaa-san mopped the floor behind us. Then again the baths in more than one Japanese hotel I’ve stayed in had “men-only”, “women-only” and “mixed” times on the posted schedules.

  115. 115
    mai naem says:

    I know a lot of people think Jan Brewer is a RWNJ but, honest to god, I don’t think she is. I think she’ll play to them but she was secretary of state for years and there was never any whack job stuff from her, and it’s not she didn’t have an opportunity. I think she’ll veto the bill. She’s old and term limited. She is not going to be making a lot of grifting money lobbying post-governor

  116. 116
    A Ghost To Most says:

    Sorry to go (sort of) OT, this story turned my stomach (I have a gay son):

  117. 117
  118. 118
    sophronia says:

    The Republican legislators are correct in saying that this really was a bill in search of a problem. Current Arizona law does not protect anyone from being discriminated against because of their sexual preference. So businesses can already refuse to serve gays and the state will not do anything about it.

    What this bill did was draw attention to the gay bigots. That’s why they’re mad. They just wanted to do a little pandering to their frothing religious whackjob base for the upcoming elections, and instead the whole country got to see what they were doing. Now the Chamber of Commerce is mad and I would be surprised if a movement isn’t starting to encode equal rights for LGBT in the state law.

    Whoops!

  119. 119
    Cervantes says:

    @sophronia:

    Now the Chamber of Commerce is mad and I would be surprised if a movement isn’t starting to encode equal rights for LGBT in the state law.

    Opportunity is what we make of it.

  120. 120
    LAC says:

    Jesus, you could read this bill to a bunch of elementary students and they would be saying “NOOOOO!” And, try to avoid using the word “solution” when you are considering voting for such a bigoted piece of shit. You are just asking for Nazi comparisons. Assholes…

  121. 121
    Sophronia says:

    Sorry, that should be “anti-gay bigots.” Sigh.

  122. 122
    J R in WV says:

    We bought a really nice new Toto toilet a couple of years ago. When I bought the seat/lid, I discovered that you can now have a toilet seat/lid that lowers itself to the toilet slowly, and lands without a sound! Whocouldanode?

    I try to put the seat down, and the lid, esp. late at night. Notice that you can put the lid down a hundred times, with any credits, but leave it up once and never live it down!

    And lots of modern with-it bars and restaurants have restrooms that are unisex, I think that’s cool. Airports have what they call family restrooms, where a couple can go in together, if one needs help with things. Modern! Advanced!
    American! Democratic!!!

  123. 123
    karen says:

    Hmmm….lots of hospitals are now owned by Catholics, 7th Day Adventists and other Christian sects. In Montgomery County, MD, we have a Trinity of hospitals, Holy Cross (Catholic), Adventist Hospital and Shady Grove Adventist Hospital. I’ve been in all three and they have crosses on the walls of the hospital rooms. Now if these hospitals were in Arizona and this bill passes, couldn’t they refuse to treat Jews or Muslims or Atheists? Couldn’t a Jewish hospital refuse to carry insulin because it’s often made from pigs? And of course, can’t these religious hospitals refuse to treat gay people or the children of gay people? People can die with this law.

  124. 124
    karen says:

    I think the “lesson” they’ve learned is that they have to find better code then “religious freedom” because it can target too many people. If they want to ban service to gays for “religious freedom” they’ll have to use language that makes it clear. Watch for it.

  125. 125
    TriassicSands says:

    “We feel it was a solution in search of a problem,”

    That’s the entire Republican Party (platform and all) in a nutshell.

    Has a major American party ever before been so utterly irrelevant to the nation’s problems and future?

  126. 126
    The Golux says:

    @J R in WV: I got tired of wiping up the overspray at least fifteen years ago, and I’ve been sitting down ever since. Only occasionally will I use a urinal when one is available.

    Seat up/down conflicts don’t exist for me.

    ETA: Toto toilets are awesome.

Comments are closed.