Lawmakers are allowed to have a conscience and think for themselves on occasion.

I understand. Honestly, this is the first I've heard of this bill. I'll respond again in a bit when I've had a chance to read some summaries about the text.

Did you watch the video?

based on the hyperlink i don't want to give this page a hit

what did the lawmaker say in response?

Longer video, same interview - http://www.eonline.com/news/514667/anderson-cooper-grills-arizona-senator-on-state-s-anti-gay-bill-senator-can-t-come-up-with-a-good-explanation-for-anything

If you can't go to E!'s website, that's your problem to deal with...

Hahaha so funny how backwards people are. It is downright scary that the man is able to be a serious contender for governor and feels "trapped" by such a simple question.

How can you think you're being set up when all someone is doing is asking you whether or not firing because of sexual orientation alone is discrimination...

Because he is so beholden to people who don't want to admit that is true. It actually is a trap question from his perspective - politically there is no right answer.

The irony, of course, is that I assume the majority of you commenting here would have no problem stating that this guy should be fired from his job simply based on the fact that he holds and exercises his Christian beliefs. I guess discrimination is only bad when is goes one way.

Eww, I got some church in my state.

Is Krellin seriously arguing that being voted out of office is the same as being fired for sexual orientation?

I love how people like Krellin try to spin this into them being victims.

Incidentally they are trying to do the same thing in Ohio. There is a contingent of people who want to turn us into Arizona. Arizona, however, will get the negative press while Ohio quietly does the same thing.

Indiana too, Putin... funny enough, 60+% are against such legislation in the surveys taken but the Senate passed it anyway.

Somebody tried to convince me that these people don't get together across the country and plan on introducing the same bills at the same time. But this has happened too frequently now to believe that. Where they meet to discuss when to introduce these extreme bills is what I want to know.

"Technically speaking, the Constitution doesn't defend you from another person's discrimination"

Technically speaking, the constitution has only ever protected slaveowners and corporations. Why we give a damn about it is beyond me. Throw the thing in the shredder and start over again.

I wouldn't shred it all, but there are a number of things should be tossed out. I mean, the Representative and Senator thing is pretty good, although I would alter how they run and are elected to eliminate political parties in general as well as put term limits, make it easier to kick them out if they misbehave, and cut their pay/benefits so they had to live like the rest of us. And the President idea is good, but needs to be a popular vote, not by some Electoral College.

Some of the newer amendments (the 14th comes to mind) is good, but needs to be expanded. The ideas of freedom of speech and freedom of religion (or non-religion if you are so inclined) are excellent.

But the right to bear arms needs revision to limit the purpose and clarify the scope so it isn't an excuse for every gun fanatic to have a fully automatic weapon. The infamous Commerce Clause needs to be clarified and limit the feds interference in what states can and cannot do (i.e. forcing people to buy health insurance - it's a tax on being alive for Christ's sake). And there are other changes to be made in it for certain.

But in the end, there is still plenty of good in it.

And of course, state legislatures and governors talk and plan their attacks together.

Damn, clicked it before I was ready...

But who says they have to get together. There is this amazing thing called the telephone and they now come in wireless "cellular" form so they can chat from the backseats of their limousines.

Putin33 would pass an organizing bill to establish a parliament and the mechanisms for election, which should be multi-member districts based on population. The Senate needs to go as does the Presidency and the Supreme Court's power of 'judicial review' needs to be eliminated (in fact it never was written in Article III to begin with). The SC should only resolve disputes between states or states & fed. In fact we could do with a total reorganization of states. Have a handful of larger states instead of a bunch of small states. We wouldn't need to draw districts or have gerry-mandering because we'd have multi-member districts. Each 50,000 people would result in one representative, or some such number. What is the point of small states? Have each region be represented by a single government. Easier to distribute resources and coordinate policy.

Parliament should be sovereign and make any law it wishes, with most recent law usurping power over older law. Ambiguous language in legislation should be sent to an independent review panel staffed by lawyers who clarify the language and subpoena lawmakers to clarify what the hell the bill says.

There that's my utopian fantasy.

Putin, lest you have a reading deficiency (which we all know you do), I said "Fired", which is a specific word, you asstard. If they vote him out of office, so be it. But I would imagine that most of the bigotted Libtards around here would be more than happy to see him fired - removed from office before his term is up. Hell, most of the time the rhetoric surrounding hatred against Christian uses much more violent language.

You'll note that the rabble is too cowardly to comment on that topic (other than you, off course, who purposely misrepresented my statement, as you **always** do...)

350 million divided by 50 thousand. So you want approximately 7000 representatives? We'd *never* get anything accomplished. Now, half a million per rep, possibly.

Obviously the small states and what not came about as the country grew and new states were introduced. I think you'd find it problematic to try and combine states as they would be offended and secede from the union. So nice pipe dream but not a chance in hell of ever actually happening.

@ Draugnar and Putin

"the Representative and Senator thing is pretty good, although I would alter how they run and are elected to eliminate political parties in general as well as put term limits, make it easier to kick them out if they misbehave, and cut their pay/benefits so they had to live like the rest of us."

Agreed, although Senators should be sent by their states, not by popular vote (i.e. repeal the Seventeenth Amendment)

"And the President idea is good, but needs to be a popular vote, not by some Electoral College."

Disagree. The electoral college has only failed to reflect the popular vote twice in history, and it forces politicians to get support from urban and rural voters alike.

"Some of the newer amendments (the 14th comes to mind) is good, but needs to be expanded."

My personal favorite aside from the Second Amendment is the Tenth Amendment. The Tenth Amendment is in desperate need of overhaul; it needs to be expanded and clarified to explicitly state that the federal government CANNOT do ANYTHING beyond its enumerated powers. I'd leave the Fourteenth Amendment alone, personally. It's not broken, so let's not fix it.

"But the right to bear arms needs revision to limit the purpose and clarify the scope so it isn't an excuse for every gun fanatic to have a fully automatic weapon."

Dude, it's *not* an excuse for every "gun nut" to have fully automatic weapons. Have you ever tried to buy a machine gun? First, it has to have been manufactured before 1986. Second, you have to wait forever and pay a TON of taxes and fees on it. Even though we *should* have the unlimited right to have machine guns, we don't.

I would carefully clarify the Second Amendment to state that any class of small arm used by the US Military ("small arm" = reasonably man-portable, such as anything up to a .50 caliber machine gun) is legal for civilian ownership and concealed/open carry. Why we allow the government has a monopoly on force is beyond me.

"The infamous Commerce Clause needs to be clarified and limit the feds interference in what states can and cannot do (i.e. forcing people to buy health insurance - it's a tax on being alive for Christ's sake). And there are other changes to be made in it for certain."

Both the Commerce Clause and the Necessary & Proper Clause need to be deleted completely. The Commerce Clause needs to be replaced by a simpler clause that bans tariffs or fees on interstate commerce.

Also, let's get rid of the Sixteenth Amendment. We had roads, schools, hospitals, a functional government, and a military that won over a dozen wars *before* the federal government had the power to tax income.

"So you want approximately 7000 representatives? We'd *never* get anything accomplished. Now, half a million per rep, possibly."

Not sure why you say that. It could be structured in a way that works – we are a modern society, and modern solutions might do wonders. It would eliminate the ability to lobbyists to buy off the politicians. And frankly, it would be a *good* thing if Congress passed a few less knee-jerk laws.

So what? Many people would like to see legislators removed before their term is up. That's equivalent with supporting private sector discrimination against gay people?

You're really reaching, but keep on playing the victim card. The fundies are really victimized. Poor things.

"I'd leave the Fourteenth Amendment alone, personally. It's not broken, so let's not fix it."

What I meant by expanding was to expand the list of protected classes under the 14th Amendment so that no group of people who identify themselves in some particular manner and who *are* identified by others (for good or bad) in that same manner can be discriminated against by government or necessary services.

The 14th amendment needs to be repealed. All it has done is enable corporations to define themselves as people and be afforded all sorts of absurd legal protections. It has done far more for corporations than it ever has for any so-called protected class.

"350 million divided by 50 thousand. So you want approximately 7000 representatives? We'd *never* get anything accomplished. Now, half a million per rep, possibly."

I think our population is more like 305 or 310, but I don't think the number of representatives matters much if a simple majority in a single house of parliament results in legislation being passed.

I must have someone muted cause I don't know who Putin was responding to. I said it should be easier to remove an abuse of power from power (be it president, senator, representative, whatever) and no one I see disagrees with that.

"Also, let's get rid of the Sixteenth Amendment. We had roads, schools, hospitals, a functional government, and a military that won over a dozen wars *before* the federal government had the power to tax income."

Income taxes were implemented before the 16th. See: Civil War.

Yes, but until the 16th amendment, it was unconstitutional. SCOTUS made that declaration in 1895.