Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS

Arizona Bill

March 5, 2014

Dear Editor, I read where the governor of Arizona has vetoed a bill that would discriminate against homosexuals. The bill was foolish. You cannot legislate morality....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Mar-12-14 6:19 PM

"One man's religion is another man's belly laugh".

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-12-14 10:48 AM

Being free to practice your religion is one thing. To discriminate against someone because you don't agree with their lifestyle or who they love is another. I have my beliefs and my own moral code, but I have absolutely no right to enforce them on anyone else PERIOD. "Christians" claim that they are following the word of God but turn around and judge and condemn. Yeah...real "Christ-like"!! Some of the biggest hypocrites can be found in your local churches.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-11-14 5:00 AM

Randy, get a grip on reality. People ain't changed a bit in 2,000 years.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-08-14 5:52 PM

FINALLY!!!! Turley just scored 100%--good answer!!

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-08-14 8:02 AM

You might want to stop worrying about homosexuals....who make up less than 1% of the populace...and start worrying about REAL issues that impact ALL Americans.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-07-14 9:25 AM

From civilrights.o r g: The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, sponsored by Senators Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Representatives Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) and Christopher C. Cox (R-CA) was supported by a broad spectrum of conservative and liberal religious groups. It passed the Senate by a vote of 97 to 3, and the House by voice vote in 1993.

RFRA sought to undo Smith by placing a heavy burden on government to modify infringements on religious freedom even when they resulted from rules of general applicability.

"Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except if...the...Government demonstrates that application of the burden to the person -- is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-05-14 6:27 PM

Mr. Marple,

Though I agree with several of your comments, I sense you are off base on several others. Regardless, we must live like Christ, be examples for our fellow man, be generous, be caring, help those in need, and spread the message by actions rather than words. There will be a great awakening as millions will recognize that the current path will only lead to destruction, pain, sorrow, unhappiness, and bitterness. Reach for the higher mark, higher ground, and find what truly matters in this world............

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 7 of 7 comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web