Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has vetoed a bill that would have allowed business who cited their religious beliefs to turn away gay customers.
Ms Brewer said the bill could have had "unintended and negative consequences".
It was touted as a religious liberty protection by social conservatives. Its opponents denounced it as legalising anti-gay discrimination.
Business groups warned it would tarnish the state's reputation and discourage companies from moving to the state.
Speaking to reporters on Wednesday afternoon, Ms Brewer, a Republican, said the bill did not "address a specific or present concern related to religious liberty in Arizona".
"I have not heard one example in Arizona where a business owner's religious liberty has been violated," she said of the bill, which passed the state legislature last week with the strong backing of the state's Republican Party.
Ms Brewer spent Wednesday huddling with both supporters and opponents of the bill and said she had vetoed it because she believed it had "the potential to create more problems that it purports to solve".
In doing so, Ms Brewer sided with the business community - including firms such as Intel, Yelp, Marriott and Major League Baseball and the Arizona Chamber of Commerce.
Loud cheers erupted outside the Arizona capitol building immediately after the governor announced the veto.
Even as the federal government, the courts, other states and US public opinion increasingly back same-sex marriage and gay rights, some states have seen the makings of a backlash, analysts say.
"Religious liberty" bills similar to the Arizona measure have been introduced in seven other US states, but Arizona's was the only legislature to send a bill to the governor.
All but three Republicans in the state legislature voted in favour of the proposal, known as SB1062, but some Republican state senators who voted for the bill subsequently called for a veto.
"We were uncomfortable with it to start with and went along with it thinking it was good for the caucus," Senator Steve Pierce told the Associated Press news agency on Monday.
"We really didn't want to vote for it. But we made a mistake, and now we're trying to do what's right and correct it."
'Sincerely held beliefs'
But supporters, framing it as only a modest update on the state's existing religious freedom law, had pushed her to sign it in support of religious liberty.
The president of a conservative policy organisation that backed the bill said Ms Brewer's veto "marks a sad day for Arizonans who cherish and understand religious liberty".
"Opponents were desperate to distort this bill rather than debate the merits," Center for Arizona Policy president Cathi Herrod said in statement. "Essentially, they succeeded in getting a veto of a bill that does not even exist."
The bill would have expanded the state's religious liberty law to include added protection from lawsuits for individuals or businesses that cite their "sincerely held" religious beliefs as motivating factors.
1) Gov. Susana Martinez decided not to file a lawsuit against the hairdresser.
2) The case would be interesting to have in court in all honest.
Gov Martinez could refer to the NMHRA as being a female when the Hairstylist wouldnt want to cut her hair for being female.
Otherwise she could file under NMRFRA discrimination based upon her religious believes that same sex marriage is wrong.
On the defendant side there would be the "The right to petition government for redress of grievances" since Gov Martinez is a politician and official of the government. Further more he could enact NMHRA which allows to defend an individual against perceived discrimination.
Not saying that the hairstylist did right but rather saying it would be a very interesting case. Sadly the Gov didnt try to sue.
4) If Gov Martinez would not have been an official of the government she most likely would have won the lawsuit. As she was at that time chances are rather slim really winning that case.
"1) Gov. Susana Martinez decided not to file a lawsuit against the hairdresser."
Why would they in a Gaytocracy?
"2) The case would be interesting to have in court in all honest.:"
Yes, it would as turn about would seem to be fair play.
"Gov Martinez could refer to the NMHRA as being a female when the Hairstylist wouldnt want to cut her hair for being female.
Otherwise she could file under NMRFRA discrimination based upon her religious believes that same sex marriage is wrong."
All of which would be ignored in a Gaytrocray. Homosexuals attacked Mormons for being Mormons a few years back, and nothing was done.
"On the defendant side there would be the "The right to petition government for redress of grievances" since Gov Martinez is a politician and official of the government. Further more he could enact NMHRA which allows to defend an individual against perceived discrimination.
Not saying that the hairstylist did right but rather saying it would be a very interesting case. Sadly the Gov didnt try to sue."
Because it is a Gaytrocracy.
"4) If Gov Martinez would not have been an official of the government she most likely would have won the lawsuit. As she was at that time chances are rather slim really winning that case."
Being a government official doesn't mean anything that anyone dreams up can be done to you. That is simply not accurate.
I'll tell you what. When you answer my question asked previously many times " In your view is homosexuality a sin" I will further define what I meant by "parading." Fair enough?
hi Knifes Edge! God bless you!
i posted above the pic regarding who is eating at the lunch counter with this thought which is the thrust of my post
"if Christians actually loved the enemies of their theology and morals and family values and actually did what st. Paul did to esteem others higher than self then they would serve GAYS gladly and actually act like and be Children of GOD Matt 5:44"
that extends to the southern christians which thought it was their christian duty to be and do what they did back then and the USA intervened
its not about comparing blacks and gays in the struggle/conflict/politics/religion/cultural values in America
its about treating all with love and respect regardless who or what they are
sorry about the understandable mix up.
God be with you!
and BTW i am gay and wasnt molested at a young age and know others gays who havent been either. though way too many have.
you can only speak of what you know
its best to :)
So, forcing someone to attend a gay wedding against their conscience is acceptable to you?
People cannot help the color of their skin. Being a homosexual is a choice. I would assume your analogy would be most offensive to black people.
Do you think this is true in all cases, being a choice? My jury is still out, I have a hard time understanding how a person can wake up one morning and chose to be homosexual, unless this is something they’ve surpass over time. I know of little children that have grown up to be this way, but they exhibited tendencies at a very young age.
The human challenge is as human beings how do we relate to this in society? Jesus said
In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets.
(CNN) -- A day after Uganda passed harsh anti-gay laws, a tabloid newspaper came out with a list of what it called the country's top homosexuals…On Monday, President Yoweri Museveni signed into law a bill that made some homosexual acts punishable by life in prison.
Usually, due to sexual molestation by the same gender at an early age, which is damaging for a child.
Being black for many is natural and obvious. To be homosexual is not natural and it need not be obvious.
Comparing blacks with homosexuals is a false comparison.
Plus, the obvious fact that practicing homosexuality is listed as an abomination before the Lord in scripture.
No where in scripture does it condemn being black, nor would it..
People, unless raped, have a choice with whom or what they engage with sexually. Racial make up is determined by your ancestry. I for one am a Heinz 57 patch work of a lot of things. Did I have a choice that my great, great grandfather on my mother's side was an Irishman with a thing Lakota Sioux women. I also can't control the fact that a Scotsman married an Atheist German Jewish girl and made my mother.
What I do have a choice in, is whether I married a woman. Whether I made children with her. They didn't have a choice as to their ancestry from my wife who made them little Vikings. We have no choice about being born or what genes we get. However, we have a clear choice about what we do with our innie and outie parts.
I do recall having a flat mate, that I moved into many many years ago, I was was aware he was divorced from a wife and did have a son, he was gay during his teenage years, he met this girl fell in love, got married to her, during his marriage, he did dabble with bisexual side of this, end the story short, he divorced, back being gay again. Several Years ago he died from a brain bleed of a blood vessel. I ask people be careful how you place judgements of these peoples, it places scars and hurts, I do recall thinking back seeing the man crying about the divorce, cried for his son, hoping that he don't think his father is a failure, this man was a Good Man, and just because is sex preference was different, sexual addiction is Homosexuality, and that it is a sin, but being Gay is not, it has a different mode within the Gospel, and basis upon Love, this is something that God indicates to me and others to grasp, one on one relationship is wholesome to a person whom seeks love in a gay relationship, and whom the people will be saved within the Gospel but not within the fullness of the gospel, its all not lost. We do amongst the Adventist and various religeons, are grasping a better understanding but the important aspect is preventing bitterness and hurt, and increase undertanding and love, as it is of what God is prompting me and everyone else. In the relationship if it hurts, its a sin. If you feel the kindness and love in the relationship, its not a sin. Hope people understand this in a hurried edit. (c) david j seibuhr
Dave, are you suggesting that being in love with the same sex is acceptable? It is called LUST which is a sin. The feelings between men and women alone can be love when joined with God's will. God is not in any relationship between two of the same sex. That is a lie.
I am saying becareful of JUDGING, CONDEMNING, its ok to rebuke, and teach, and lead the way of the RIGHTFUL, I can point out items, at the moment, in my own city, that people are throwing tantrums over gay right & gay wrong groups, its disturbing about the kux clans are now knowns hanging around the adventists, and everyone is now turning on each, I have stumbled upon it and now know, whoever it is has now threaten to hang a kux clan person, I do not condone that course of action....I urge the owner of this website to freeze the topic instantly... 'flaming' 'bad mouthing' and standing in the way of freedom of right is a breach of the geneva convention bill of rights, america amended constitution etc, I have belief some of these people that are gay are stalked, and even righteous gay and hetro adventists that do wrongs to those are also seemed to be stalked, there is evidences of this, to those gay-bisexual persons if you assume or have circumstantial do know, fill out that protection court order form, the court also may have the power to terminate this website on the grounds of its abuse by its users...we are seeing its not properly moderated, I actually see concerns for the person who verbally type items and not thinking of their consequences, as the bible distinctly says Thou not Judge One Another ... teach the ways of right... Titus 2.1 is of what I firmly believe ....... I admire & Christian Love adventists but very concerned of the backbiting on either side it is not righteously right and correct, I am sure the owner of this website frowns upon those actions. It is a rated MA & PG topic and this is all to see topic, and I see this should not have been done.
Rebuking sin is not judging Dave. If one were having open relations with someone who is not their spouse but that of another, should we remain silent?