AZ Legislature turns back clock, resumes segregation, but this time for gays

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

And yet somehow Republicans think their current brand will translate into big gains in November.

[windjammer]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

CNN

Scott, you have forgotten the AZ women .

[afleitch]

Good, good. To be honest though, how easy is it to tell whether somebody is gay or not. I mean, sure, there's a few out there who set off the old gaydar, but realistically now. 'Tis pretty difficult sometimes.

You need to sort your life out.

[Likely Voter]

Good, good. To be honest though, how easy is it to tell whether somebody is gay or not. I mean, sure, there's a few out there who set off the old gaydar, but realistically now. 'Tis pretty difficult sometimes.

That is a good point. In the good old days, when you put up your "whites only" sign, it was easy to identify any violators. Perhaps the fine AZ legislature will propose new legislation require the gays to wear something that identifies them, so that the fine religious people can be sure to not serve them. Perhaps some kind of armband?

[HAnnA MArin County]

Doesn't look like McCain has said anything yet.

Well, one McCain has said something

http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=17882&MediaType=1&Category=26

Yes, this bill is utterly disgusting, but it's just the religious right's pathetic response to how quickly the country is evolving on gay rights. I really don't comprehend the "logic" behind their argument how we have to tolerate their intolerance in the name of abstract dogma.

[seanNJ9]

Horrible, but isn't that already the law? If some idiot private business owner wants to refuse business from someone because they are gay isn't that his right?

Doesn't mean a boycott can't be launched.

[swl]

Wait, is this sh**t even constitutional?

Yes, how is that even possible?
Would the US constitution also allow the same kind of segregation on a racial basis?

[Cassius]

Good, good. To be honest though, how easy is it to tell whether somebody is gay or not. I mean, sure, there's a few out there who set off the old gaydar, but realistically now. 'Tis pretty difficult sometimes.

There are few people here who I can honestly say I think would turn America into a quas-Nazi state if they were able to.

You, and others, have misunderstood my comment (albeit understandably, as that comment was poorly clarified under the influence of tiredness). I was simply pointing out that it is a difficult thing to spot homosexuals, as, unlike other groups in society, they posess no defining characteristics that mark them out as different. Therefore, my point is that I don't see this bill, if it becomes law, having that much of an effect. I mean, realistically, who broadcasts their sexuality when they walk into a bar or a shop? Nobody. This bill will have little effect upon individuals, unless, unfortunately, they happen to be known to be gay by a business owner who doesn't want to serve gays. Now, I would have thought that such instances are likely to be, fairly, rare, and thus will not have too much impact. The reason why I am mildy well disposed towards this bill is because it gives business-people, whom, for whatever reasons, have objections to homosexuality, some security and the ability to avoid doing things that they don't feel comfortable doing. You may find this a rather soft, or perhaps 'elitist' attitude to hold, but I don't really feel comfortable having the state stepping in to force people to do business with people that they want nothing to do with. Sorry...

As for the title of this thread, I find it rather misleading. Firstly, it states that the Arizona legislature has 'resumed' segregation for gays (as if it ever existed). Well, according to my reading of the article, it appears only to have passed the House, and thus still requires approval by the Senate, so this bill, as suggested by the word bill, is not even law yet. Secondly, you describe this as 'segregation'. It isn't really segregation. That word represents the separation of people, whereas this bill advocates the idea that businesses should be able to discriminate, under certain circumstances, when it comes to conducting business with gays. There is a difference, and I don't think chucking in the historically charged term of 'segregation' (although, to be fair on you, you certainly aren't the first to do this) is good for anything except muddying the waters surrounding this issue. Thirdly, I think this title implies, somehow, that the government is enforcing discriminatory legislation down on the heads of gays. Again, it isn't, rather, this bill seems to be aimed at enabling individuals to choose whom they want to associate themselves with in business transactions. In the case of this bill, it's up to the individual, not the state. Finally, just a prepared rebuttal to some arguments that I'm sure will be flung at me, the fact is, there are, I believe, over 2,534 restaurants (and that's just restaurants) in Phoenix alone. Am I seriously supposed to believe that all 2,534 of those restaurants, and all the others throughout Arizona, are suddenly going to close their doors to gays. That is not going to happen. Now, I'm no expert and I freely admit that, but I'd guess maybe 1-10 percent might utilise this bill. It's not very many, and there will certainly be plenty of other places for gay people to be allowed to go to. Really, I can only see this legislation causing a fairly minor inconvenience for a small minority of a minority of people. I mean, there are still golf clubs around that won't admit female members. Has this been a cause of devastating harm and heartache to women. Probably not. I don't see anything different in that to this. Also, one further point, since the liberal side is clearly winning on the issue of accepting gays anyway, the likelihood is that most of these business owners won't be around in, I don't know, 10-30 years time. It's not going to have a very long term impact, but it might provide a little succour and comfort to a few people. And again, I see little wrong in that.

As for the use of the term 'gaydar', that was clearly humorous. I mean, does anyone use the term seriously in the 2010's?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

You, and others, have misunderstood my comment (albeit understandably, as that comment was poorly clarified under the influence of tiredness). I was simply pointing out that it is a difficult thing to spot homosexuals, as, unlike other groups in society, they posess no defining characteristics that mark them out as different. Therefore, my point is that I don't see this bill, if it becomes law, having that much of an effect. I mean, realistically, who broadcasts their sexuality when they walk into a bar or a shop? Nobody.

Boy, you really need to get out more.

All this bill does is make gays feel like they have to hide their sexuality more than they already do.  Perhaps you're okay with that, but encouraging people to feel like outcasts - people who have to conceal their identities to not be refused service - is actually very harmful.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why does it concern you whether these instances are rare or not if you know that people will be hurt by it?  If a law impacts people negatively, it shouldn't be on the books.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The bill is awaiting Brewer's signature or veto.  She has the final word on it now.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, at least it took more than two pages into the thread before someone decided to nitpick at the title.  That's not bad.  Usually it's much quicker.

But that aside, you acknowledge that this bill allows businesses to discriminate.  That's all that needs to be said.  Semantics games (which, let's face it, is all the anti-gay folks use to build their "case") doesn't change the substance.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Right.  In other words, it allows the people of the state of Arizona to segregate its citizens by sexuality if they so wish.  It allows individuals to isolate other individuals from society.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm glad you see being denied service on account of your sexual orientation as just a "minor inconvenience."  I'm glad we have someone like you on here who can speak on behalf of the gay community.

Again, this is a nonsense argument.  If you don't think this bill is a bad thing, why should it matter to you whether one percent or one hundred percent of businesses decide to utilize it?  Seems to me like a classic case of trying to have your cake and eat it, too.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...

Yes.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Does anyone know if the forum is considered a business of Dave's?

[Likely Voter]

What AZ is proposing is actually worse than the "historically charged" segregation of the South. In that era of "separate but equal," businesses were offering separate services for whites and blacks. AZ is proposing that it should be legal to deny services entirely. The new law isn't protecting business from offering different services (like how Woolworth's in the south had separate counters for blacks), it is protecting business so they can deny gays service at any counter at all. It isn't sitting at the back of the bus, it is not being let on the bus to begin with.

[Cassius]

You, and others, have misunderstood my comment (albeit understandably, as that comment was poorly clarified under the influence of tiredness). I was simply pointing out that it is a difficult thing to spot homosexuals, as, unlike other groups in society, they posess no defining characteristics that mark them out as different. Therefore, my point is that I don't see this bill, if it becomes law, having that much of an effect. I mean, realistically, who broadcasts their sexuality when they walk into a bar or a shop? Nobody.

Boy, you really need to get out more.

All this bill does is make gays feel like they have to hide their sexuality more than they already do.  Perhaps you're okay with that, but encouraging people to feel like outcasts - people who have to conceal their identities to not be refused service - is actually very harmful.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why does it concern you whether these instances are rare or not if you know that people will be hurt by it?  If a law impacts people negatively, it shouldn't be on the books.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The bill is awaiting Brewer's signature or veto.  She has the final word on it now.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, at least it took more than two pages into the thread before someone decided to nitpick at the title.  That's not bad.  Usually it's much quicker.

But that aside, you acknowledge that this bill allows businesses to discriminate.  That's all that needs to be said.  Semantics games (which, let's face it, is all the anti-gay folks use to build their "case") doesn't change the substance.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Right.  In other words, it allows the people of the state of Arizona to segregate its citizens by sexuality if they so wish.  It allows individuals to isolate other individuals from society.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm glad you see being denied service on account of your sexual orientation as just a "minor inconvenience."  I'm glad we have someone like you on here who can speak on behalf of the gay community.

Again, this is a nonsense argument.  If you don't think this bill is a bad thing, why should it matter to you whether one percent or one hundred percent of businesses decide to utilize it?  Seems to me like a classic case of trying to have your cake and eat it, too.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...

Yes.

Well, your point on people 'hiding' their sexuality. I mean, I don't really get it. I don't feel the need to 'show off', if you will, the fact that I'm straight, and I'm sure that a lot of gay people don't feel the need to show of their 'gayness' either. I may be wrong, but still, I'm sure that I've encountered plenty of gay people and not known that they were gay.

Your comment saying that laws that negatively impact people shouldn't be on the books I felt was rather weak. There are plenty of laws out there that inconvenience me and most other people; and yet we accept them because there is usually a good reason for them being there, even if they do have a negative impact upon some people. This case is true here, there are a minority of people who don't feel comfortable doing business with homosexuals, and a relatively small minority at that. Now, I don't have any statistics and studies to hand (and I imagine that you don't either), but it seems to me that the relative reduction in choice for gay people in a handful of situations is a price worth paying for giving this other minority some peace of mind.

Going on to your point on the people of Arizona being, theoretically, given the power by the state to isolate certain individuals from society, well, I concede that is theoretically true. But, in practical terms, it just isn't going to happen. I mean, certain individuals like to harp on about how the 'anti-gay' chaps and chapesses are 'on the wrong side' of history and that public opinion is now strongly accepting of homosexuality. Therefore, it seems highly, highly improbable that anything even akin to 'isolation' will happen to gays. When it comes to passing laws, in my view, the practical as well as theoretical implications of the bill in question need to be taken into account (as I'm sure is your view), and in this case, I just don't see it having that sort of 'isolating' effect.

Finally, well, I don't, particularly, give a damn whether I can 'represent' the gay 'community' or not. However, being denied service is, well, a rather minor inconvenience, if you take into account the large numbers of available substitute services that are likely to be offered. Also, you talk of this as a 'nonsense argument' and then ask me why I would care if one or one hundred percent of businesses decide to utilise it. Well, I don't, particularly, care if they do or not. I, if I were an Arizonan, wouldn't be affected, and neither would my family and friends (as far as I'm aware). But, again, I would like to point out that any large-scale use of this legislation is probably fairly unlikely, indeed, if we were living in a society where such a large proportion of businesses would utilise this legislation, then this whole debate would be very different than it is. My point is that, if I were opposed to this bill, I wouldn't get too worked up about it given that it probably won't affect very many people (and again, in my situation, no-one close to me).

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Well, your point on people 'hiding' their sexuality. I mean, I don't really get it. I don't feel the need to 'show off', if you will, the fact that I'm straight, and I'm sure that a lot of gay people don't feel the need to show of their 'gayness' either. I may be wrong, but still, I'm sure that I've encountered plenty of gay people and not known that they were gay.

Once again, go out into the real world sometime.  Tell me how straight people are so adamant about not 'showing off.'

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Except that most laws apply to, and affect, everyone.  There is no good reason to permit discrimination, no matter what your religion teaches you.

And it's plainly obvious that you prioritize the happiness of bigots over the equal treatment of homosexuals simply because you are a bigot yourself.  If someone doesn't want to have to deal with homosexuals, then they're free to isolate themselves from society and live in their own sheltered little world - kind of like you do right now.  I'm willing to bet that there are far many openly gay people than openly bigoted people right now.  So going by your logic, if a few bigots are faced with the 'minor inconvenience' of serving people they don't like, what's the big deal?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh, I'm not concerned about the widespread effects it will have on gays.  I am concerned about the effects it will have on gay people who are affected by discrimination.  The people who are the victims of this law.  The people who your kind has disenfranchised.

Unlike you, I don't care about how many people this will affect.  I care that it will affect people at all, and I would be jut as opposed to this law if we were living in a less tolerant society.  I must say, your reasoning here is quite bizarre.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Except you have nothing to worry about.  You're not the one who has to consciously worry about hiding your own identity to get what other people enjoy.  So pardon me if I don't take some sheltered, spoiled, snotty, privileged little brat's input on 'minor inconveniences,' into consideration.

I think you've revealed a lot about yourself throughout this conversation, or at least reaffirmed how others think of you.  You've basically admitted that you don't care if anyone's rights are being infringed upon unless it's your own or the rights of someone you know.  For consistency sake, would you support allowing restaurants owned by homosexuals to deny service to straight people?  Y'know, for religious reasons.

[Brittain33]

What AZ is proposing is actually worse than the "historically charged" segregation of the South. In that era of "separate but equal," businesses were offering separate services for whites and blacks. AZ is proposing that it should be legal to deny services entirely. The new law isn't protecting business from offering different services (like how Woolworth's in the south had separate counters for blacks), it is protecting business so they can deny gays service at any counter at all. It isn't sitting at the back of the bus, it is not being let on the bus to begin with.

Functionally, Jim Crow meant that blacks were denied services and there was often no welcoming equivalent they could use. I was reading The Warmth of Other Suns, which profiles three African-Americans who migrated from the south to NY, Chicago, and Los Angeles, and the guy who traveled to Los Angeles could not find any place to stay between Texas and California, and only scattered "safe" places in Texas. In this case with Arizona I think services discriminating against gays would be the exception to the rule, and you'd always be able to find some decent restaurant, florist, photographer, etc... while for blacks in the Jim Crow south you might be locked out of any decent service.

[Mr. Illini]

Why are these states needing to pass laws to allow this? Did they actually ban it at one point and are now moving regressively or are they just passing laws to affirm it an show off their bigotry?

[Cassius]

Well, your point on people 'hiding' their sexuality. I mean, I don't really get it. I don't feel the need to 'show off', if you will, the fact that I'm straight, and I'm sure that a lot of gay people don't feel the need to show of their 'gayness' either. I may be wrong, but still, I'm sure that I've encountered plenty of gay people and not known that they were gay.

Once again, go out into the real world sometime.  Tell me how straight people are so adamant about not 'showing off.'

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Except that most laws apply to, and affect, everyone.  There is no good reason to permit discrimination, no matter what your religion teaches you.

And it's plainly obvious that you prioritize the happiness of bigots over the equal treatment of homosexuals simply because you are a bigot yourself.  If someone doesn't want to have to deal with homosexuals, then they're free to isolate themselves from society and live in their own sheltered little world - kind of like you do right now.  I'm willing to bet that there are far many openly gay people than openly bigoted people right now.  So going by your logic, if a few bigots are faced with the 'minor inconvenience' of serving people they don't like, what's the big deal?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh, I'm not concerned about the widespread effects it will have on gays.  I am concerned about the effects it will have on gay people who are affected by discrimination.  The people who are the victims of this law.  The people who your kind has disenfranchised.

Unlike you, I don't care about how many people this will affect.  I care that it will affect people at all, and I would be jut as opposed to this law if we were living in a less tolerant society.  I must say, your reasoning here is quite bizarre.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Except you have nothing to worry about.  You're not the one who has to consciously worry about hiding your own identity to get what other people enjoy some sheltered, spoiled, snotty, privileged little brat's input on 'minor inconveniences,' into consideration.

I think you've revealed a lot about yourself throughout this conversation, or at least reaffirmed how others think of you.  You've basically admitted that you don't care if anyone's rights are being infringed upon unless it's your own or the rights of someone you know.  For consistency sake, would you support allowing restaurants owned by homosexuals to deny service to straight people?  Y'know, for religious reasons.

Well, fair enough. 'Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me'. And all that. You are well within your rights not to take my views into consideration (although, with your almost dutiful insistence on rebutting the vast majority of the points that I put across, I do wonder). As am I to reject yours. I know, well, nothing of your background, so I'll decline to comment upon it. However, I will say that there's probably something in it that makes you the way you are. The same is true with me. I am, and I'll be the first to admit it, a child of privilege in the grand scheme of things. I've never gone hungry, I've gone to good schools, I've been showered with love by a pair of wonderful parents. They never 'spoiled' me, I will say, if only to defend them. They taught, have taught me to be honest, upstanding, grateful, polite etcetera. I do my best to act upon these principles, which I believe to be good ones. Now, how does this monologue fit in with my point. Well, I guess, its because I can only make decisions based upon my background and present situation. Sure, I can 'put myself in the shoes' of people who are, perhaps, not like me, with very different backgrounds, and I can sympathise with their struggles and their plight and all the rest of the daily drudgery that is their existence. But, at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter, because, like it or not, rebel or not (which I don't) I am not one of them, and I have very different interests and values to them. More to the point, I have certain friends whose interests, I feel, should trump those of these 'downtrodden' people. An anecdote; I have a very good friend whose dad is a Church of England vicar, of a rather conservative bent. As far as I've been made aware, he opposed strongly the idea of consecrating female Bishops, a process that is now bound to go ahead. Whatever the merits of the case for having women Bishops (a case I'm not convinced of myself) this man, a good man whose son I'm friendly with and a man whom I've come to respect, I wanted his side to win out (apparently he's now thinking of leaving the CofE, not so much over this issue alone, but apparently it was the straw that broke the camel's back). And, perhaps, if he'd been on the other side, I would have been more amenable to the idea of women Bishops. But, to me, bonds of friendship, of family, of group, are far more important than whatever qualms one might have about the treatment a bunch of people whom you've never even met. I'm sure one could make the same argument for a group of, shall we say, less well-off people, who get hacked off when the politicians talk about 'economic efficiency' and 'balanced budgets'. They might well think 'sure, fine, but what's in it for me and my people'. And the answer to that question could well be nothing, and, in the grand scheme of things, the potential upset brought about by those actions might not matter very much. But it matters to individuals, who, in their own small strip of reality, have their own priorities. So, feel free to denigrate me as an evil, callous child of privilege. But just remember, in some people's eyes you could well be seen by others as a stuck up and self-righteous person who is unable to fathom why certain groups in society think in a way that you find offensive (this charge is often levelled against me on this forum, and, whilst they are certainly to an extent correct, I do feel that I have a working understanding of the basic fact that most people disagree with me ). Now, I'm sure that you are none of those things, but when you use slights like some of the bolded (the spoiled, snotty and brat bits) you do come across as all of those things and, you know, it really doesn't generate any sympathy on my part for your argument (some of which I find to be a reasonable critique, even if I stick by my support for freedom of association). So, Scott, let's just accept that we have an inverse view of the world (although, I don't know, yours may be informed by more experience than my own, after all, you could be twice my age for all I know), and not resort to pretty, well, silly, insults.

[bedstuy]

Well, I guess, its because I can only make decisions based upon my background and present situation. Sure, I can 'put myself in the shoes' of people who are, perhaps, not like me, with very different backgrounds, and I can sympathise with their struggles and their plight and all the rest of the daily drudgery that is their existence. But, at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter, because, like it or not, rebel or not (which I don't) I am not one of them, and I have very different interests and values to them.

No, most people are able to feel empathy for other people.  That's being a normal human being.  You may have a psychological disorder. 

[Edu]

Well, your point on people 'hiding' their sexuality. I mean, I don't really get it. I don't feel the need to 'show off', if you will, the fact that I'm straight, and I'm sure that a lot of gay people don't feel the need to show of their 'gayness' either. I may be wrong, but still, I'm sure that I've encountered plenty of gay people and not known that they were gay.

Unless you think that gay people are a species of humans that always walk and hang out alone, this is not really a matter of showing their "gayness" like dressing in rainbow colors or whatever you thinks that is.
Sometimes gay couples hang out together you know, just like heterosexual couples, and when you see a couple of guys or a couple of girls kissing you pretty much can deduce that they are gay. So it's not really a matter of someone entering a store or restaurant and shouting "I'm gay, bitches", it's about people living their lives, doing the very same things that an heterosexual person or couple would do without the need to shamefully hide themselves or to live in fear of being constantly discriminated against.

Now if you think that a gay couple shouldn't "broadcast" that they are gay (by doing what every heterosexual couple does) and they should pretend they are friends or cousins or whatever then at least your bigoted views will be somewhat coherent.

[Smash255]

Why are these states needing to pass laws to allow this? Did they actually ban it at one point and are now moving regressively or are they just passing laws to affirm it an show off their bigotry?

Combination of base pandering and showing off their bigotry, which is basically the same thing anyway.

[SteveRogers]

Why are these states needing to pass laws to allow this? Did they actually ban it at one point and are now moving regressively or are they just passing laws to affirm it an show off their bigotry?

It's a sort of last hoorah before the Supreme Court hands down a decision legalizing gay marriage nationwide. The far-right crowd wants to get a few more points on the scoreboard in the meantime, and if their marriage bans aren't going to hold up in court anymore, then they figure they'll have to find another way to stick it to the gays. Otherwise how will their constituents know that they're fighting the good fight for "traditional values"?

[Bojack Horseman]

A town 20 minutes west of where I grew up passed an anti-discrimination ordinance, which said that you can't turn a gay couple away simply because they're gay. Instantly, the (this is going to sound very "broad brush" like, but it's the truth) Christians were outraged and launched recall campaigns to throw the city council and mayor out of office (As it was passed unanimously by council) because these laws have been used to "Attack and shut down Christian businesses."

Personally, if and when I find my man, I think we should go buy our wedding cake from the baker in Lakewood, Colorado who said he'd rather go to jail than bake a cake for a gay couple, and then go have our wedding in Provo, Utah on the campus of BYU.

[IceSpear]

I don't see any reason why Brewer won't veto this. She has no reason to fear pissing off the far-right since she's term-limited, and she's too old for presidential ambitions.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I don't see any reason why Brewer won't veto this. She has no reason to fear pissing off the far-right since she's term-limited, and she's too old for presidential ambitions.

By the same logic, she has no reason to fear pissing off moderates.  If she truly believes she won't be running in any future elections, she can make whatever decision she wishes without worrying about the politics too much.

[Sol]

Last I heard, Brewer was considering running in 2014 due to a vague area in AZ's constitution.

[IceSpear]

I don't see any reason why Brewer won't veto this. She has no reason to fear pissing off the far-right since she's term-limited, and she's too old for presidential ambitions.

By the same logic, she has no reason to fear pissing off moderates.  If she truly believes she won't be running in any future elections, she can make whatever decision she wishes without worrying about the politics too much.

I've seen her as the type to use the far-right to get elected then ditches them afterward. Just look at the heavy handed tactics she used to expand Medicaid. Even many Democratic governors wouldn't go that far.