Skip to content

Cardinals, Super Bowl host committee oppose attempted business legislation in Arizona

Tostitos Fiesta Bowl - Central Florida v Baylor Getty Images

The Arizona Cardinals and the Super Bowl XLIX host committee have voiced their opposition to a bill awaiting approval from governor Jan Brewer that would give religious business owners more freedom to refuse service to customers or ignore government mandates that conflict with their faith.

According to Mike Sunnucks of the Phoenix Business Journal, the Cardinals and the Super Bowl host committee released statements Monday opposing Senate Bill 1062. They join a group of businesses and gay and civil rights groups in opposing the bill.

“What so many love about football is its ability to bring people together,” the Cardinals said in a statement. “We do not support anything that has the potential to divide, exclude and discriminate. As a prominent and highly-visible member of this community, we strive to bring positive attention to the state. We are concerned with anything that creates a negative perception of Arizona and those of us who are fortunate to call it home.”

The bill would give businesses the ability to cite their beliefs in their decisions on hiring workers or in opposition of providing health coverage with aspects such as birth control.

Other groups also oppose the bill as they believe it will lead to discrimination of many different people including the LGBT community and religious minorities.

The governor has until Friday to either sign the bill or veto it.

The statements released by the Cardinals and host committee both speak against the discriminatory aspects of the bill. The timing is somewhat humorous considering lobbyist Jack Burkman’s attempt to legislate a ban against gay players in the NFL also coming out on Monday.

Bottom line… can’t we all just get along?

Permalink 29 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Arizona Cardinals, Home, Rumor Mill
29 Responses to “Cardinals, Super Bowl host committee oppose attempted business legislation in Arizona”
  1. livenbreathefootball says: Feb 25, 2014 12:03 AM

    And you said in the article on the lobbyist no legislative body would seriously consider such a thing. Well, clearly the AZ lege will.

  2. chris3141084 says: Feb 25, 2014 12:31 AM

    Any word if they are going to move the Super Bowl if the bill passes? I hope so, there’s precedent for it, and oddly enough it involved Arizona. Also dealing with civil rights, the observance of MLK day for those that weren’t aware.
    It can’t be too hard to move it, there’s many locations ready made and more than willing to host the NFL.
    The word was that they couldn’t get the hotels to lock in prices among other issues, now gay and lesbian customers could be refused service. I hope everyone does the right thing and that starts with the governor vetoing that bill.

  3. metalhead65 says: Feb 25, 2014 12:44 AM

    another example of libeal tolerance. you believe in free speech and the right to live your life the the way you want as long as it is the same as yours. of all the places you can go to get the services you want why must you try and force someone to do something that is against their beliers and relgion?

  4. huskersrock1 says: Feb 25, 2014 12:55 AM

    This country has a 17 trillion dollar debt, and over 90 trillion in unfunded liabilities, further Iran is still working on the bomb and all you people want to discuss is gay rights? I am all for gay rights but it is just a smoke screen issue for the democrats. When the dollar collapses no one will give a crap about who is sleeping with who.

  5. bnwpnw says: Feb 25, 2014 1:50 AM

    If the governor passes it, move the Super Bowl.

  6. sb139422 says: Feb 25, 2014 1:57 AM

    To start, I don’t care if youre gay. I really don’t. You can do what you want in your own life and I won’t dislike you as a person for it. I may not agree with it, but I’ll respect your lifestyle. Refusing service to a customer based on sexual orientation is wrong. Because your service, whether its selling clothing, giving haircuts, or serving pizza, doesn’t go against your religious beliefs. The problem is that lgbt’s are using this to sue religious ppl for not wanting to provide services to the actual ceremony. That’s wrong. Very wrong. You want to be accepted for your beliefs while not accepting others for theirs? That’s audacity. Go get another photograper…….

  7. deezenucks says: Feb 25, 2014 2:18 AM

    In today’s day and age I’m floored anything like this even gets to a voting stage, completely ridiculous.

  8. chawkup says: Feb 25, 2014 2:55 AM

    That’s really the bottom line? Not that this bill is ridiculous and hateful and bigoted? Not that the Cards could have just had the courage to state directly that this bill is hateful and wrong? Come on. If this bill becomes law, the NFL should never again host a Super Bowl in this state. That’s the bottom line!

  9. jbarr1 says: Feb 25, 2014 3:35 AM

    I guess what I find disturbing is why the NFL would even consider having the Super Bowl there to begin with. For a bigoted bill of this nature to even reach the Governor, there has to a sediment amongst several elected officials, who were elected by voters, that this is the way they want things to be in their State. I would encourage the NFL owners to take the Super Bowl elsewhere while there is still plenty of time.

  10. Ed Bandell says: Feb 25, 2014 3:56 AM

    I can get along if the Government would stop trying to force feed silly social programs down my throat and give me no choice in the matter about how my tax money will be spent.

    Why in the world should I pay for somebody else’s contraception? Sexual Intercourse is a choice. Or, you know, you could pay for your own birth control. How is that discrimination?

    Privately owned companies should be free to do whatever they want within the confines of the law. If some really narrow-minded people don’t want to serve people of certain persuasions, there is the statement, “I reserve the right to refuse service…”

    Is it a good business practice to alienate potential customers? I would have to think not. So let the idiots do what they want and then within a year or two they will wonder why they are bankrupt and owe so much in debt.

  11. joetoronto says: Feb 25, 2014 4:13 AM

    “Bottom line… can’t we all just get along?”

    Sure, we can “all get along”, as long as everyone agrees with the liberal agenda and the “LGBT community.”

    Well this just in, not all of us do.

    SMH.

  12. cowboys4lyfe says: Feb 25, 2014 5:27 AM

    Thumbs up if you all believe my Cowboy will make it to The Super Bowl next year! #FAITH!
    #STAR.

  13. stoolerz says: Feb 25, 2014 7:01 AM

    I guess people with religious convictions don’t have rights

  14. gadlaw2012 says: Feb 25, 2014 7:17 AM

    You would think that Arizonistan would have learned something from those years of being against the Martin Luther King federal holiday and the negative attention they received. Once again the good crazy folks there are dancing on the edge of the cliff with their behavior. Sign this bill governor and say bye bye to the Super Bowl and say hello to boycotts.

  15. purplengold says: Feb 25, 2014 7:36 AM

    Like scared little children, some people feel they must control the private lives of others. Jack Burkman works for those scared little children.

  16. Trey says: Feb 25, 2014 7:47 AM

    So the Cardinals, Super Bowl host committee and presumably PFT are FOR discriminating against religious people by FORCING religious business owners to go against their First Amendment rights (or so we thought) by government coercion (see the baker, photographer, and the florist in various places who were sued) .

    Note the bill does not allow for discrimination of gays, but that religious business owners do not have to participate in gay weddings or ceremonies or provide abortion inducing drugs. Both which are against their conscience and viewed as sinful.

    If the situation was different, say that a hotel owned by gays were forced to host the Westboro Baptist for a convention would big business and the government support them? I doubt it nor should they.

  17. whythecardinals says: Feb 25, 2014 7:54 AM

    Why are The Cardinals getting involved in politics? Will they be endorsing a political party candidate too?
    One of the greatest things about football is the absence of political differences or opinions.. It doesn’t matter if you are a democrat or republican, liberal or conservative, you are a fan or player for team…
    Why and the heck get involved in this?

  18. tomtravis76 says: Feb 25, 2014 8:13 AM

    You can’t play the super bowl in Arizona in 2015 if this law is put on the books. That’s ridiculous. Aren’t we supposed to be more educated and forward thinking as we continue to evolve?

    Is there going to be a push to bring back slavery next? Come on ,people can’t really think and still have some of these idiotic beliefs.

  19. qdog112 says: Feb 25, 2014 8:17 AM

    Arizona is doing it’s level best to become a modern-day Mississippi from the Civil Rights era. They are determined to “keep hate alive”.

    Not only should the Super Bowl not go there, if the idiocy continues, the NFL should consider a move to LA. Let the bigots of Arizona stew in there own feces.

    RECOMMENDATION: Build a fence!!!

  20. The Great Ted Thompson the Genius says: Feb 25, 2014 10:04 AM

    From what I understand, this bill doesn’t mean gay people will be refused service. It just means that someone who is philosophically opposed to gay marriage wouldn’t be forced to participate in the ceremony just because a gay couple wants them to. It’s called freedom, and I don’t have a problem with it.

  21. mrdry14 says: Feb 25, 2014 12:57 PM

    In other news, the AZ legislature just passed a resolution changing the state’s name to West Russia.

  22. clashpoint says: Feb 25, 2014 1:09 PM

    Equal rights means equal rights. This is in the same category as gay marriage. If the situation were reversed it would still mean the same thing, and I’m pretty sure the religious couple would sue the crap out of the gay photographer too. Everybody’s got a lawyer these days.

  23. clashpoint says: Feb 25, 2014 1:11 PM

    Arizona: The Ugunda of the United States.

  24. steelerben says: Feb 25, 2014 1:15 PM

    The plain and simple reason that the bill should not be made into law is that our laws should be protecting our rights, not actively limiting them.

    It isn’t a gay rights issue, even though there are elements of that. It isn’t a religious rights issue, even though there are elements of that. It is designed strictly to allow people to cite their religious beliefs to deny health coverage or not hire someone. That someone could be anyone. I could claim that my religion thinks that anyone of color was darkened by their sins against god and not hire them. I could claim as an atheist I have the right to deny employment to christians. I could claim that as a hardline Christian I wouldn’t hire women.

    The bill is being opposed, not because people are anti-religion but because it is obvious that the bill would be used to cloak bigotry with faith, thus perverting the religion being called as a defense. It is also clear that doing this would result in an abundance of lawsuits for violations of rights. Instead of passing such a law, which costs time and money, to have it eventually struck from the books for being unconstitutional, which will cost even more time and money, it makes more sense to oppose it.

    It is easy for the religous right to forget this, but the first amendment was put into place to protect the MINORITY not the majority. When it was written, the various faiths that came to the colonies to avoid persectution from the Anglican or Roman Catholic church decided that it would be a good idea to protect all religions from a majority faith. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, there are cries that because religion does not come under consideration for granting people rights, the majority faith is being persecuted.

  25. GBwomenrhot says: Feb 25, 2014 1:22 PM

    Nothing new for Arizona….I was travelling through Flagstaff in 1976 with a Black friend and was refused service in a restaurant….haven’t been back to that dump of a State since.

  26. theuglitruth says: Feb 25, 2014 1:53 PM

    The funny thing is…if the SB was pulled from AZ. They probably wouldn’t mind. They wouldn’t want to deal with all of the tourists that didn’t fit their criteria, but if your white, blonde hair & blue eyes, and straight…it’s the state for you!

  27. just4given says: Feb 25, 2014 4:06 PM

    Can you all just keep your politics out of my football? I promise, I will keep my ball out of your back yard too!

    Shame on the Cardinals for believing that they have to be selctive over so-called rights. Religious freedom is guranteed by the First Amendment. This freedom doesn’t begin and end at the church door. On the other hand, marriage is privilege that comes with restrictions – just like a driver’s license. It is backwards thinking to squelch a right guaranteed by the Consitution for a manufactured “right” nowhere to be found in the foundational law of the land.

  28. theneedforspeeed says: Feb 25, 2014 8:42 PM

    The first amendment says, in part: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.

    It DOES NOT guarantee ANYONE the right to shove your discriminatory beliefs down my throat via legislation.

  29. dioalice says: Feb 25, 2014 9:19 PM

    just4given; your post has so many things incorrect, it truly is mind-boggling.

    The Cardinals (and the NFL) are correct to condemn this moronic legislation. This isn’t a religious freedom issue (does the legislation outlaw your beliefs?) but an attempt by narrow-minded dim bulbs to legislate second class citizenship on people they dislike or disagree with.

    Regarding the Constitution; states should be making laws enriching liberties, not restricting current ones based on religious bigotry. In the end, it will not matter as any state legislation such as this (or similar lunacies passed in Kansas) will be struck down by even a conservative Supreme Court. All it will cost Arizona is millions of legal fees and the continued loss of goodwill by the vast majority of thinking Americans.

    Kudos to the Cardinals, the NFL and the three dozen or so sane people left in Arizona for opposing this vitriolic nonsense.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!