Another Conservative Republican Law For The Special Treatment Of Christians: :roll:
QuoteConservative advocacy group Center for Arizona Policy and Republican state senator Steve Yarbrough are pushing a bill that would let people use their religious beliefs as a valid defense when being sued for discrimination. In effect, it would make it legal to discriminate against people if you can argue that your religion justifies it.
Discrimination based on secular reasons would remain illegal; only faith-based discrimination would be protected.
So this bill would commit two egregious crimes: first it would allow for discrimination and second it would single out faith-based discrimination as uniquely justified and protected. This is the sort of bill that only deluded theocrats could come up with and believe to be righteous. Sadly, that's just the sort of person being elected in Arizona and they are using their power to advance their sick agenda.
Specifically, the bill proposes to:
Expand the state's definition of the exercise of religion to include both the practice and observance of religion;
Allow someone to assert a legal claim of free exercise of religion regardless of whether the government is a party to the proceedings; Expand those protected under the state's free exercise of religion law to "any individual, association, partnership, corporation, church, religious assembly or institution, estate, trust, foundation or other legal entity."
Proponents say the bill would, for example, protect a wedding photographer who declined to take photos of a same-sex couple's commitment ceremony due to the photographer's religious beliefs.
Opponents say it could also protect a corporation that refused to hire anyone who wasn't Christian and could block members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community from access to nearly any business or service. ...
"In America, people are supposed to be free to live and work according to their faith," said Sen. Kelli Ward, R-Lake Havasu City, in support of the bill.
Sen. Katie Hobbs, D-Phoenix, was among the dissenting votes. "I don't oppose anyone's right to their religious freedom, but people have a right to access goods and services," she said. "This infringes on other people's rights."
Source: AZ Central
Yes, observers say that this bill has a very good chance of becoming law. It's already legal in Arizona to fire someone simply because they are gay and it looks like bigoted employers will be given one more excuse to use in courts for why they shouldn't have to treat all human beings as equals.
It's not just gay citizens who are threatened by Steve Yarbrough's theocratic agenda. He has openly admitted that not only will employers be given more protection to fire gay employees, but they will even be able to discriminate against unmarried women and non-Christians. This is because the bill is broadly worded to protect any sort of discrimination, not just homophobic discrimination. In effect, he is trying to give bigoted Christians in Arizona a legal excuse to ignore just about any anti-discrimination law.
America's Christian Right invests a lot of effort arguing for a connection between family values and their religion, but what basic family values require their religion or belief in their god? Godless families exist because values like love, respect, and sacrifice don't depend upon theism. You don't even have to be a theist to oppose abortion or support sexual abstinence until marriage. None of the positive family values necessary for raising healthy children are undermined by being godless.
Wow. Sounds like we're only a few years removed from the United States of Christianity.
Yes, murdering people for merely not agreeing to hold slaves, beat wives and children, that YES, you CAN take up housekeeping in the belly of a whale should be legal. Where's the problem there? :rolleyes:
We should counter-demand at all 313 commandments be strictly held.
Welcome to the balkanization of the federal government. I'm pretty sure the next move by batshit crazy state legislators will be to try to confiscate any and all US military assets within their borders.
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"Welcome to the balkanization of the federal government. I'm pretty sure the next move by batshit crazy state legislators will be to try to confiscate any and all US military assets within their borders.
How else can we defend our precious bodily fluids?
Quote from: "Gawdzilla Sama"Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"Welcome to the balkanization of the federal government. I'm pretty sure the next move by batshit crazy state legislators will be to try to confiscate any and all US military assets within their borders.
How else can we defend our precious bodily fluids?
Well a civil war where millions die would certainly accomplish that sanctity.
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"Quote from: "Gawdzilla Sama"Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"Welcome to the balkanization of the federal government. I'm pretty sure the next move by batshit crazy state legislators will be to try to confiscate any and all US military assets within their borders.
How else can we defend our precious bodily fluids?
Well a civil war where millions die would certainly accomplish that sanctity.
You see this coming?
This could apply to race or anything else as well. You can claim a religious objection to anything. I have a religious objection against people who think this bill is a good idea.
The law won't stand. It will be appealed to the SCOTUS and thrown out.
Quote from: "Gawdzilla Sama"We should counter-demand at all 313 commandments be strictly held.
All 613!!!
I hate to say it, but I can see a very tiny amount of Constitutional justification for something like this. The First Amendment does guarantee the free exercise of religion, and I do think that at least a little bit of a case could be made if tolerance towards a certain group is offensive to their religious standards. They wouldn't win in the end or anything, but it would be interesting to watch.
Quote from: "_Xenu_"I hate to say it, but I can see a very tiny amount of Constitutional justification for something like this. The First Amendment does guarantee the free exercise of religion, and I do think that at least a little bit of a case could be made if tolerance towards a certain group is offensive to their religious standards. They wouldn't win in the end or anything, but it would be interesting to watch.
Even in California, a religious organization cannot be required to hire against its tenets: they can require a church employee to belong to the sect.
I think that's fair, myself. But the slope slips under my feet even as I post.
Godzilla..
QuoteYou see this coming?
Well, if everyone here wants to acknowledge me as a certified, reliable clairvoyant..maybe, but....not really. You never know with these batshit crazy mother fuckers.. :-k
I was joking recently to some friends about wanting to move to Japan or something.
Not sure how much of a joke it is anymore...
One more trip around the block in the short bus for Arizona law makers.
This will be fun when someone someday decides that catlics can't come into their store as they worship false gods aka, all the crazy fucking saints they have. Then come the mormons, and ...oh I just love the abated intrigue.
I really need to get this Toothfarianism church going there.
"What? You have a cavity or a chipped tooth or even a crooked tooth? Teeth not bright white and perfect? Don't bother shopping or working in our stores! Got a minor toothache? YOU'RE FIRED!" :evil:
No one expects this to go away by itself. It will take effort; the effort will be expended.
Quote from: "Plu"Wow. Sounds like we're only a few years removed from the United States of Christianity.
Or a secession of one of the factions.
Maybe we will split up into Redstateopia and Bluestateopia.
It's been passed. (//http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/arizona-passes-antigay-bill-allowing-business-owners-to-refuse-service-on-religious-grounds-9146185.html)
Here's hoping it gets up to the Supreme Court. I don't see how blatant discrimination like this could be constitutional.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"OK. But I don't get the thread title. I thought OP was going to be about a specific situation or a something that went between individuals.
The article is telling a bill about to be a law that is based on religion and blatant discrimination. It's an early phase of abolishing secular government bit by bit. Why is it so under rated and played down? Didn't this take any real attention in the national media? This is really dangerous.
First of all, I was just about to post a comment with nothing more than how much I enjoyed the thread title. Then I scanned down and saw your post, so I'll add a bit more.
The title captures the essence of a powerful, but unspoken need of religion. Well at least in the case of Christianity and Islam. Although Christians don't see their bigotry as bigotry. They see it as some natural order which they think is self evident: Blacks are inferior, Gays are icky, atheists are immoral. So it's not bigotry to them. It's just the way it is, because well, they just say it is.
Of course with a Christian attitude, it's only appropriate that discriminating against outsiders is a necessary virtue. Except, they don't call it discriminating. Instead, it's "being godly" or "doing God's work." It doesn't even have to be something specifically addressed in the Ten Commandments. If they don't like it, then it's wrong, and it can be based on any bias that bothers them. Skin color used to be adequate, but they got shot down on that one, so now they concentrate on other differences. Apparently they can't wait for judgment day. They need to take matters into their own hands and punish the wicked. You know; Get in a few kicks before God brings the hammer down on the vile sinners destined for Hell, while they are assured seats in heaven.
Making others suffer is their God given right, and if they can't do it, they act like victims.
So obviously, in order to not be "victims", they need a law that guarantees their right to cause suffering and harm to others. Of course, as pointed out, the law will not make it through the courts. Not today, but 50 or a hundred years from now, it might. Things do change. And there is always a danger of a religious minority coming into power and another Spanish inquisition.
And yes, you are right. It's a dangerous law if it could be passed. It's horrible beyond words because it opens the door for all sorts of special interest groups that want to be free to cause harm and suffering.
What makes the thing so interesting as it is a law that specifically guarantees the right to discriminate. In other words a law that protects the right to make others suffer. Currently, most laws passed today tend to forbid causing harm and suffering, because it's sort of the premise behind the constitution. George Bush tried to do it with the constitutional amendment to forbid gay marriage. Imagine a constitutional amendment that guarantees the right to discriminate against others. GOD BLESS AMERICA!
Religion is vile and it's dangerous, unless it happens to be your religion. Then it's glorious, until some other self appointed special interest group turns the tables. Then you get to be the victims. Real genuine victims, not just some asshole cry babies.
Hasn't been signed into law yet. The governor down there sometimes has flashes of sanity, so we'll see. Would love to see a "gay people welcome, no Mormons allowed" sign. See how that one goes.
Jan Brewer has flashes of sanity!?
I didn't say often.
Sadly, religion breeds bigotry. If one is religious, that doesn't mean he/she will be prone to being bigoted, but religion definitely draws lines between races, other religions, and cultures. When I followed religion, I wasn't a bigot, and perhaps that was what I noticed first as to why I didn't feel comfortable being religious anymore.
Mind boggling is that someone who is a very devout Christian will tout that they are also pro-gun and against Socialism. Considering Jesus was the quintessential socialist, just goes to show how ignorant that religion really is. Of even its own doctrine.
Quote from: "Deidre32"When I followed religion, I wasn't a bigot, and perhaps that was what I noticed first as to why I didn't feel comfortable being religious anymore.
Yep, it's hard to be a member of a religion when it advocates something that you sense is fundamental wrong, immoral, or unethical. And it's not a simple matter to hang in there and try to make the religion better from within. Then you start to question other parts of the doctrine. If one part is morally repugnant, then the claim of divine glory falls. The most sensible thing to do is leave, and if you must, carry on the reform from outside.
I grew up in Mormon Utah and went in the Navy in 1968. Prior to that I had seen exactly 1 black person and heard nothing but racist stuff about them. My first few weeks in boot camp I was sure the black members of my boot camp company all had straight razors under their pillows. It took awhile to unlearn the bigotry.
No question religion and bigotry go hand in hand. If Jan Brewer has a brain, she will kill this.
they probably did have straight razors, after all, they heard one of them crazy mormons was in the bunk.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Quote from: "Manodo"It's been passed. (//http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/arizona-passes-antigay-bill-allowing-business-owners-to-refuse-service-on-religious-grounds-9146185.html)
I missed this. Yeah well...Happens bit by bit like this.
Yes it is bit by bit, and in my opinion, the US is on the brink. So far, the more rational types have been able to keep this kind of threat at bay, but there is not a great disparity in the numbers of each side. It could tip over the edge.
Keep in mind that after a bill is passed, the governor has to sign the bill into law (I don't know if this has happened or not because I'm not following the matter closely). Governors quite often veto things like this. If he/she does not veto, the bill becomes a law. Then it has to be challenged by anyone with standing and the resources to take it to court. The courts then either strike it down or uphold it, usually based on constitutional issues. I think the courts will strike it down if it gets that far.
It is not unusual for state legislators to pass all kinds of crazy bills for different reasons. Quite often they pass these bills to put the governor in an uncomfortable position. If he vetoes a crazy bill, he's going to anger a bunch of crazy people, so sometimes he just says, "Piss on it," signs the bill into law, and passes the responsibility onto the Court. It's a scary process to watch, as we never know for sure if the law will be struck down or upheld.
Going by the media's coverage of the bill, it seems unconstitutional to me, and I think it will be struck down.
Another thing I find interesting about this bill, at least from the way the media presents it, is that it actually identifies itself as "discriminatory." This is unusual. Bills are usually given names and cloaked in language that present them as something fair and wonderful for the good of everyone. This bill simply says discrimination is what we want to do. Most Christians I know don't even say that. They will say, "We don't want to discriminate against gay people. We just want to protect marriage." Partly, it's because they don't want to own the fact that their behavior is discriminatory. It would freak them out to think of themselves that way.
Quote from: "SGOS"Another thing I find interesting about this bill, at least from the way the media presents it, is that it actually identifies itself as "discriminatory." This is unusual. Bills are usually given names and cloaked in language that present them as something fair and wonderful for the good of everyone. This bill simply says discrimination is what we want to do. Most Christians I know don't even say that. They will say, "We don't want to discriminate against gay people. We just want to protect marriage." Partly, it's because they don't want to own the fact that their behavior is discriminatory. It would freak them out to think of themselves that way.
''Protect marriage.'' Meanwhile, heterosexual marriage ends in divorce nearly 55% of the time. That's just the stat for first marriages ending in divorce. Many of them, christian. So, me thinks christian, conservative heterosexuals need to spend some more time yanking the weeds out of their own yards, and less time pruning others' yards. :roll: Hypocrisy at its very best.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Quote from: "SGOS"Yes it is bit by bit, and in my opinion, the US is on the brink. So far, the more rational types have been able to keep this kind of threat at bay, but there is not a great disparity in the numbers of each side. It could tip over the edge.
I completely agree with you. Contrary to the common belief I agree with this not because I always tend to be anti-american, but because this is very familiar to me.
QuoteKeep in mind that after a bill is passed, the governor has to sign the bill into law (I don't know if this has happened or not because I'm not following the matter closely). Governors quite often veto things like this. If he/she does not veto, the bill becomes a law. Then it has to be challenged by anyone with standing and the resources to take it to court. The courts then either strike it down or uphold it, usually based on constitutional issues. I think the courts will strike it down if it gets that far.
Yep, I know that. Pissing off the crazy people constantly radicalise them and creates subcultures like "white christians are oppressed!". And the most dangerous thing is that makes these people more organised, divide the society more because doesn't matter how stupid is something as we all know very well that once people believe in it -and they believe anything for their benefit- it becomes the only truth.
Was there anything like that^ 15 years ago? "Oh how the white christians being oppressed"? It sounds funny now, ridiculous. Give it a decade or two. It's going to be a major domestic issue. It will be real bit by bit.
QuoteIt is not unusual for state legislators to pass all kinds of crazy bills for different reasons. Quite often they pass these bills to put the governor in an uncomfortable position. If he vetoes a crazy bill, he's going to anger a bunch of crazy people, so sometimes he just says, "Piss on it," signs the bill into law, and passes the responsibility onto the Court. It's a scary process to watch, as we never know for sure if the law will be struck down or upheld.
Going by the media's coverage of the bill, it seems unconstitutional to me, and I think it will be struck down.
This is where I beg to differ. It should be very unusual. It should tell people that they are constantly under a very serious threat. I don't know hot to explain how I see this, but I will try.
All this picture shows that constitution serves as an emergency pull. Yeah at first glance there is nothing wrong with it, right? It's the armour of freedom...blah blahs and secular system and all.
No, it is not. That means there is no actual secular state, but a power zone that only makes decisions according to a very unstable agenda that can be manipulated basically by anyone with enough money. Lobbying, SGOS. It's not just legal, it is the system that the country runs on. How can that end good? How can that exist along with any kind of idea of equality? W?th the current wealth distribution and what's to come it is a time bomb.
It looks like it didn't work for the worst till now, because American society is rendered paralyzed culturally to develop any dynamic to stand against any of this. This is why there has been no left in the country. I know it annoys people very much when I start with this. But this is how your culture evolved and the reason is your economical, social system. From an individual level to the collective. The system is fundamentally wrong. It's not human friendly, has never been. It's ridiculous to expect any equality. Now you are rightfully going to say which system is? Yes none of it. But in the US, this is far extreme and it shapes world politics. It's insane. This is not a hyperbolic expression.
As long as people can consume in certain amount of means, things will look benign. This is what happening now. However, when this stops and passes a tipping point there will be a social explosion. It's not going to be what you see in far far away lands. And you know who will win? The side with the money, who is powerful enough to manipulate the state or federal state politics. People pay for it.
And now I want to ask a question, when a society goes down what kind of two very opposite ideas -or let's say 'ways' for the sake of the argument because ideologies are put upside down in your society- will took place in the US?
Needlessly to say it's not going to be a healthy, balanced left. There is going to be a far nationalist, racist, religious reaction. Because this is what happens all the time. This is normal human reaction, doesn't even have to be far right society, but American society is. Then forget about the mighty constitution armour. This common unshakable trust I observe among Americans to constitution, rights, federal state (first) or any government and states baffles me as an individual. It baffles me to trust these power zones in any system, let alone in one like US. And based on that how you perceive the others. :(
This is not something that is going to happen suddenly. I think that's what confuses people and serves their very shot term memory. People expect a sudden change and the bad scenario is defined by some other contrast culture defined as evil. This is ridiculous. This is why majority of American people see nothing wrong. Because of the trust and that also all things dangerously fundamental, extremist and destructive are associated with some hyped up evil that lives in far away lands.
Sensible Americans do see their religiously fanatic population, but it's culturally never the same threat as some evil Islamist extremists which fought by a made up war that killed thousands of your children millions of others to make rich people more rich so they can manipulate more.
This is not going to happen, oh because this is Muurrica. This is going to happen because there is no other possible outcome of this scenario anywhere. Jurassic Park. Yeah sounds ridiculous to all of you when I say this, but 'America' is Jurassic Park. If you let a power of this scale happen, it gets out of control. There is no other way. It doesn't get itself in check, get corrected or become something to be used for people. It just gets bigger and bigger, because if it doesn't continue rapidly to get more powerful, something else would. And this has nothing to do with people, we are just resource. Cattle.
There is no difference between how a wealthy Sharia cleric sees people in his country and how a filthy rich American businessman sees the people in his country. Your leash is more comfortable and longer, you have more toys and more hobbies. Decors and theatrics are better. It's technically the same thing. Yeah I said that. Gross, overboard generalisation? Not at all. That works there, this works here. It's the same fucking bullshit.
I like your style, kid.
Some of the guys who voted this in are having second thoughts: http://www.abc15.com/news/state/sb1062- ... -of-sb1062 (http://www.abc15.com/news/state/sb1062-update-3-arizona-republican-senators-urge-veto-of-sb1062)
Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"Some of the guys who voted this in are having second thoughts: http://www.abc15.com/news/state/sb1062- ... -of-sb1062 (http://www.abc15.com/news/state/sb1062-update-3-arizona-republican-senators-urge-veto-of-sb1062)
A swell of opposition in their districts? A moment of clarity? Compassion? I wonder what's going on.
Quote from: "SGOS"Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"Some of the guys who voted this in are having second thoughts: http://www.abc15.com/news/state/sb1062- ... -of-sb1062 (http://www.abc15.com/news/state/sb1062-update-3-arizona-republican-senators-urge-veto-of-sb1062)
A swell of opposition in their districts? A moment of clarity? Compassion? I wonder what's going on.
at some time, even the pack has to break up and go home and there, the family asks, "ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR FUCKING MIND?"
Quote from: "SGOS"Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"Some of the guys who voted this in are having second thoughts: http://www.abc15.com/news/state/sb1062- ... -of-sb1062 (http://www.abc15.com/news/state/sb1062-update-3-arizona-republican-senators-urge-veto-of-sb1062)
A swell of opposition in their districts? A moment of clarity? Compassion? I wonder what's going on.
It's giving their state a bad name so they're worried about tourism.
Georgia might pass a similar law, fuck.
I watched some conserviturd get shredded on TV trying to defend "religious freedom " and there was no defense, none at all once again making the false claim of persecution basically arguing religion needs the right to persecute others to protect their right to persecute others to protect their right to persecute...and on and on the circular logic went.
Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"Quote from: "SGOS"Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"Some of the guys who voted this in are having second thoughts: http://www.abc15.com/news/state/sb1062- ... -of-sb1062 (http://www.abc15.com/news/state/sb1062-update-3-arizona-republican-senators-urge-veto-of-sb1062)
A swell of opposition in their districts? A moment of clarity? Compassion? I wonder what's going on.
It's giving their state a bad name so they're worried about tourism.
Yeah, I saw they were getting pressure from the business community. Apparently, economics slipped their minds when they were inventing this thing. Well most everything slipped their minds. Political competence at the state level can be worse than the at the Federal level, if anyone could imagine that possible.
I'm guessing it was something like "Oh shit, they're actually going through with it! Now all the dumbfucks that thought we were cool for suggesting this (and then would hate our opponents for shooting it down) will realise it's an absolute shitfest and we'll lose votes!".
I haven't spent a penny in Arizona since they passed the "Show me your papers, brown person" law. The state is run by bigots.
Rest assured, governor Jan Brewer has said she'll do the right thing.
Well then I guess this debate is over. :-k
The governor has indeed done the right thing and struck the stupid bill down.
Also it looks like Georgia's version of the bill is dead: http://m.wsbradio.com/news/news/georgia ... ead/ndz6r/ (http://m.wsbradio.com/news/news/georgias-religious-freedom-bill-looks-be-dead/ndz6r/)
Some prominent Georgia based companies like Delta gave them the smackdown.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Good news. But then a giant airline company saved the day, by claiming it would make significant harm and cause loss of job.
It would paint a brighter picture of society if it had failed out of compassion, rather than economics.
The Pollyanna in me chooses to believe that it was common sense that appealed to Brewer rather than economics.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Good news. But then a giant airline company saved the day, by claiming it would make significant harm and cause loss of job.
Yeah, but here is where I'd say that this kind of corporate PR is showing how people think. Companies aren't stupid, when they make a public statement they're trying to appeal to the most people possible. If they saw harm or no benefit from releasing such a statement they wouldn't release such a statement. In some locals, especially areas that have been gerrymandered to hell, being anti LGBT will get you votes. What this shows though is that as a whole, in this nation, being discriminatory and anti LGBT is falling out of fashion.
Plus us gays have all that sweet sweet double income no child money...except for me...fucking broke.
Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"What this shows though is that as a whole, in this nation, being discriminatory and anti LGBT is falling out of fashion.
Yes, the fact that an economic statement is made is significant. Delta could have said nothing, because the bill would not require them to discriminate. They could continue to service all their customers. Delta officials understand this of course, so the statement is more like a warning to politicians: "People will avoid Georgia if it develops a reputation as a haven for bigots."
Quote from: "SGOS"Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"What this shows though is that as a whole, in this nation, being discriminatory and anti LGBT is falling out of fashion.
Yes, the fact that an economic statement is made is significant. Delta could have said nothing, because the bill would not require them to discriminate. They could continue to service all their customers. Delta officials understand this of course, so the statement is more like a warning to politicians: "People will avoid Georgia if it develops a reputation as a haven for bigots."
Yep. Some people will question this because Georgia has a ban on same sex marriage. I've come to understand that people in general pay no mind to the discriminatory laws already on the books until something happens, but it's come to the point that trying to pass a new discriminatory law is damaging economically and politically. That's a big thing: such laws being introduced in the past would illicit no response or even get mass support, now it's taboo.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"My general point is about a company having this power. Exactly the opposite of this could happen under the same circumstances. Something with this mechanic can easily work other ways. And it is not some far away scenario, esp. since these piece of shits started to develop some new bullshit culture about white christians being oppressed or discriminated against. Because they lost twice.
The fascinating thing about any religious group in a society is that how successfully and fast (in terms of decades in these sense) they can organise. Because secular, sensible minds do not work that way in an individual level, let alone to to push them work in a collective manner for one goal.
But these people do, because this is how they work. This is their existence. And they will get radicalised the more democrats push from the other side. This is why this shouldn't be left to the sense of some company. Companies do this and do that according to mainstream wind. When tables turn...you can't find any of them. People are source for them.
I know it sounds you very exaggerated. It's not. This is domestic, you do not see it coming, because culturally threat of religious fundamentalism you recognise is not coded that way. There wouldn't be bombs, massacres or etc. Whatever is happening is becoming the culture bit by bit and it becomes reality.
I wasn't suggesting that a company should settle matters like this, but rather that a company releasing such a statement is an indicator of general views.
I do agree that an organized movement needs to come about to fight the further radicalization of these fucks, but have no idea about how such a movement can be started when nobody seems to care.
If the media is reporting this accurately, Brewer got a bump in the polls. State legislators don't represent a general cross section of American values. They represent smaller demographics, often from gerrymandered districts that have borders redrawn around more isolated values. Districts are not gerrymandered to represent broad cross sections of values and are not representative of the big picture. Governors don't look at the same polls that State legislators are paying attention to. State senators are not the brightest politicians either. They often have more personal agendas, and don't grasp public thinking as well.