"this bill protects religious freedom"

wow

If that word was meant to be Choose then I think I've found your issue right here. WELL there IS that AND your apparent MALFUNCTIONING shift KEY.

Despite his fairly pious Christianity, i'd argue that Kant came up with a decently objective morality based on a logical knowledge.

@Mr Khan

I would disagree entirely. But then, I hated Kant (to the extent of always using the correct pronunciation).

The way Kant uses the universal law doesn't work. Because morality is subjective and because the way the universal laws can be worded.

Using abortion as an example (I'll go out on a limb and say that Kant would be opposed to it):
Law 1: All pregnancies ought to be terminated. [obviously no one would agree that this should be a universal law]
Law 2: Terminations ought to be available in the case where a pregnancy is unwanted. [I'd say yes, other people say no]

Kant's vision of the universal law also ignores context. Again in the case of abortion; what about if the preganancy is as a result of rape ,or incest? What if the life of the mother is in serious danger? What if there are serious congenital defects?

The universal law doesn't account for other factors, and when applied as a part of a universal law, it quickly becomes subjective, rather than objective.

In short, I think Kantian morality is wrong, and is nothing more than Kant being a religious apologist. Same as his theory of the phenomena and the noumena. In much the way of Descartes before him, Kant hits upon problems of reconciling his metaphysics with his religion and starts to make crazy leaps of logic in order to reinvent the Christian god.

Now, now she hasn't signed the bill.  No need to take things THAT far yet.

Plus, poor, poor Shatner if he has to sleep with that nasty old Govenor of AZ.

Please do tell me about this Manipulative Fascist LGBT Loby!

It think some of it is a last ditch effort.  They are nearly surrounded in Arizona by same sex marriage.  To the west California, To the east, New Mexico.  To the Sound The nation of Mexico, and to the West North West Nevada (getting it in a year or so) and North Utah (sort of already on the books – just tied up in courts.)

They must know it’s symbolic.  Like how California banned blacks and white in marriage until the 1950s.  But it is a shameful and stupid thing the legislators are doing.  I am glad they are getting so much flack over it.

He's already said he would support a bill that allowed denial to service to African Americans, that should tell us all we need to know about what kind of person he is.

I don't think you understood the question. I didn't ask if you thought it was OK for a person to refuse to serve someone because they're black. I asked if you thought it was OK to have a bill that says that people can refuse to serve someone because they're black. That is, legislation explicitly written to say "you can refuse to serve someone because they're black".

I said I would be OK with a bill that allowed denial to service anyone because of anything as long as its private buisness. But I guess that part didnt fit your tunnel vision so you left it out