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

[bedstuy]

And, just on this subject of gay people never being discriminated against, look at this article.  That details hatred motivated attacks on gay people in a small area of New York City in just a few months.  These things actually happen as most gay people can attest to. 

I never said that gay people are never discriminated against.  And it shouldn't take LGBT specific laws to deal with physical assault.  Those attacks are felonies to be tackled and dealt with no matter their motivation.  Is it really less of a concern if someone gets assaulted for some other reason?

I've been assaulted for being gay and I've had people assault me in a mugging.  Believe me, it feels a lot different.  Just like it feels a lot different being fired for being gay and being fired for good cause.

I'm not sure why different feelings about requires different laws. Why can't they give the perpetrator 5 yrs for assault in both cases?

It unfortunately likely that those who assaulted him for being gay did a more thoro job of it than those who assaulted him for money, in which case a stiffer sentence is warranted.  But that would be because of the result not the cause.

It's the same reason that premeditated murder has a higher sentence than a murder in the heat of passion.  A hate crime is a more morally wrongful and socially destructive act.  If you can't see that, I don't know if you know what discrimination and hatred feels like. 

But, it's really illustrative of something greater.  Gay people are the victims here.  "Religious" people who cling to homophobia are monsters.  Let's just acknowledge that fact.  As we become a more enlightened country and more old homophobes are exercising their freedom to associate with  6 feet of dirt, we can stop patronizing their stupidity.  They deserve their first amendment rights, but we don't need to pearl clutch over their hypothetical and imaginary persecution.

[afleitch]

Are you tired?  It was after midnight in Scotland when you posted this and while I sometimes disagree with you, this last post of yours has you coming across as awfully dense

I don't generally think of grocery shopping as a family activity.

You defined freedom of association as; 'By definition, free association requires the consent of both parties.  It is not a unilateral right in which one person gets to choose with whom they will associate regardless of the desires of potential associates.'

So if LGBT people are potential associates and freedom of association is not a unilateral right in which one person (the Christian) gets to choose with whom they will associate regardless of the desires of potential associates (the gay) then in what context did the law strengthen freedom of association? That's what didn't make sense.

[tik 🪀✨]

The merchant who refuses to serve a traditionally vilified minority is causing harm to them, arguably (see "minority stress theory.") There's not really a defensible reason to hold the rights of a merchant who is offering goods and services to the public over the right of a private citizen to live freely without undue detriment to their mental and physical health because of non-negotiable traits. This is also why I can't smoke at the pub anymore.

[Brittain33]

I'm not sure why different feelings about requires different laws. Why can't they give the perpetrator 5 yrs for assault in both cases?

"Different feelings" is why we have different punishments for manslaughter, second degree murder, and first degree murder, rather than just one catch-all murder conviction with the same punishment.

[Brittain33]

I'm part of a same-sex couple and half the time, we go grocery shopping together. Sometimes I'm too busy and he needs to go alone, and sometimes I'm available and it's always much faster because I can wait in line for cold cuts while he gets other stuff on our list. Then we check out together.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

You don't necessarily need to be shopping with boyfriend in tow for someone to know you're gay. If you're gay in a small rural town, it'll be talked about. Or even in a mid-sized conservative town. People will know you, solely for the purpose of not knowing you. A small handful of same-minded folks could easily force people of a certain type out of -- or keep people out of -- communities.

[afleitch]

You don't necessarily need to be shopping with boyfriend in tow for someone to know you're gay. If you're gay in a small rural town, it'll be talked about. Or even in a mid-sized conservative town. People will know you, solely for the purpose of not knowing you. A small handful of same-minded folks could easily force people of a certain type out of -- or keep people out of -- communities.

It happened to my husband when he went home to Pennsylvania for the first time since he came out. . It's partly why I took a week off the forum to deal with the sh-t when he got back to Scotland.

[afleitch]

You defined freedom of association as; 'By definition, free association requires the consent of both parties.  It is not a unilateral right in which one person gets to choose with whom they will associate regardless of the desires of potential associates.'

So if LGBT people are potential associates and freedom of association is not a unilateral right in which one person (the Christian) gets to choose with whom they will associate regardless of the desires of potential associates (the gay) then in what context did the law strengthen freedom of association? That's what didn't make sense.

And stop trying to be an asshole. You're not very good at it.

You do seem to be an expert.

An expert at what?

[afleitch]

You defined freedom of association as; 'By definition, free association requires the consent of both parties.  It is not a unilateral right in which one person gets to choose with whom they will associate regardless of the desires of potential associates.'

So if LGBT people are potential associates and freedom of association is not a unilateral right in which one person (the Christian) gets to choose with whom they will associate regardless of the desires of potential associates (the gay) then in what context did the law strengthen freedom of association? That's what didn't make sense.

And stop trying to be an asshole. You're not very good at it.

You do seem to be an expert.

An expert at what?

I would have thought my meaning clear, but it is clear we have a failure to communicate here.  Whether that's because of you, me, or both of us, I don't know.  But then communication, just like free association requires both parties to be in accord for it to happen.  Clearly we aren't in accord here.

Your meaning wasn’t clear.

You come across as someone who knows that what you envision as the ideal can’t under any circumstances work. In a society that politically and socially is fundamentally white, fundamentally male, fundamentally Christian and fundamentally straight there cannot be a level playing field, because such a level playing field disadvantages those who hold positions of power and authority as a result of their ‘in’ status. That’s been there in America since it’s foundation and influences its constitution and laws. It continues in governance today. You can only elevate classes that have suffered prejudice to any level of parity by protecting them from discrimination, otherwise they will encounter it at each stage of their life. Talent, drive and ambition don’t count for anything if ultimately that can be brushed aside for aesthetic purposes. Discrimination is personal invalidation.

So we have those same fundamentals; white, male, straight, Christians in Arizona sh-tting their pants over a hypothetical cake maker being forced to make a hypothetical cake for a hypothetical gay wedding and yet the fact that you can be sacked from your job because you are gay doesn’t concern them.

The truth is homophobia is very real and its effects are very real. And yes, it might inconvenience you that you would have to extend the Civil Rights Act (because apparently the constitution wasn’t clear enough) to cover yet another class of people even though you acknowledge that it is needed to protect those already protected. It’s needed because society doesn’t play nice when it’s left alone to self-segregate. Personal freedom is not something that exists unrelated to human interaction. You might want to be as free an individual as you want to be, but the moment your subsistence relies on other people, (which quite frankly it always will) then from that moment you’re never fully free. You can’t always make people play nice, but you can at least try to make them play a little fairer. Then when you play fair, you might, just might start being nice to each other.

[Brittain33]

What I find really weird about conservative apologias of this law is the insistence that a wedding photographer refusing to accept gay couples as clients is any different from someone turning that couple away from a restaurant or grocery store. What are the grounds for that distinction?

A photographer's ability to do their job well is influenced by comfort with their couple. For a restaurant or grocery store, if you're professional, it shouldn't make a difference.

[THE_TITAN]

I'm glad this was vetoed, such a pointless law. The people of Arizona should be mad that their legislature is wasting their time and money on such laws. I did however enjoy Anderson Cooper's verbal beat-down of Arizona state senator Al Melvin on the issue.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It's more a case that I doubt the ability of government action here to produce the utopian vision of a more tolerant society.  I think it's more likely to follow the ongoing trend towards a more tolerant society than to be a catalyst for effecting that change. As such, anti-LGBT discrimination laws are only likely to be enacted at the point when the benefits they produce would be rapidly declining.

What I find really weird about conservative apologias of this law is the insistence that a wedding photographer refusing to accept gay couples as clients is any different from someone turning that couple away from a restaurant or grocery store. What are the grounds for that distinction?

A photographer's ability to do their job well is influenced by comfort with their couple. For a restaurant or grocery store, if you're professional, it shouldn't make a difference.

To a degree that depends on the restaurant.  A fast food joint doesn't require any empathy with the customer, but I could see it with a higher class restaurant with extensive personal service as part of the experience.  But as a practical matter restaurants are already exempt from the Civil Rights Act since any potential restauranteurs who do want to discriminate need only organize as a nebulously defined "private club" to exempt themselves from Title II now.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Thinking on this some more in light of your last post Andrew, it appears that one fundamental difference is that I am viewing the default state of people as non-association, in which case both people need to agree to associate while you view the default state of people as being associated.  I don't agree with that view, but if I took it, then I would assert that people do have a right to choose non-association and that the right is a unilateral one in that any person can generally choose the people they do not associate with.

[afleitch]

Thinking on this some more in light of your last post Andrew, it appears that one fundamental difference is that I am viewing the default state of people as non-association, in which case both people need to agree to associate while you view the default state of people as being associated.

I do. I am a humanist. We are human beings; we are defined by our association with other humans from birth. I think the natural state of being is mutual association. I think that the reasons why people seek to discriminate; on the basis of the perceived status of women, over colour, race, sexuality etc are social constructs. Allowing people to perpetuate constructs deserve secondary status in law to peoples inherent traits.

I don't agree with that view, but if I took it, then I would assert that people do have a right to choose non-association and that the right is a unilateral one in that any person can generally choose the people they do not associate with.

I do not think that realistically people have an equal right to choose the people they don't wish to associate with, because the power group tend to determine laws and social norms concerning freedom of association. Therefore some groups are always subjugated and can never reciprocate that 'freedom' of association because they are not granted the power to or are not placed on an equal footing. How can a gay person, who is currently not subject to federal protection and until 2003 didn't even have a constitutional right to privacy exercise any 'freedom of association' if legally, he isn't fully free in the eyes of the law? The only way he can exercise any freedom to be protected by the law, not omitted by the law in the hope that society will afford him that freedom of it's own volition.

For the same reason, a Saudi women does not have free association because the dominant power group has determined that she does not have that right. If we were able to give her that right, what would be the best legal move? Grant her protection from discrimination under the law, or have no protection from the law for anyone including women, and still allowing continued discrimination under the guise of 'freedom of association'?

That is essentially it from me. I don't have the will to argue further.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'll only briefly reply that laws cannot work unless the society for which they are made supports those laws.

[Brittain33]

To a degree that depends on the restaurant.  A fast food joint doesn't require any empathy with the customer, but I could see it with a higher class restaurant with extensive personal service as part of the experience. 

That's why I stressed the importance of being a professional. If you're a professional waiter, you don't have to really do anything different to provide good service - you just have to do your job and have some basic integrity. I think it strains credulity to say that a waiter needs to endorse a customer's lifestyle to serve them and take their orders. A photographer has to be comfortable capturing intimate moments (in a public sense.) All that said it's a difference of degree rather than kind and it's where I find myself.

Note that we've shifted here from "religious objections" to basic comfort/disgust. Which is what this is really about, anyway.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If all the waiter does is take orders and then serves the food, you'd be right, but at the highest level, restaurants do try to go beyond that.  As for religion, while some who seek this raise that point, for me it's always been strictly about free association without reference to why people might choose to shun others and thereby stupidly cost themselves a chance to make a profit.

[Brittain33]

If all the waiter does is take orders and then serves the food, you'd be right, but at the highest level, restaurants do try to go beyond that. 

It's ok if you choose not to accept the distinction.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If all the waiter does is take orders and then serves the food, you'd be right, but at the highest level, restaurants do try to go beyond that. 

It's ok if you choose not to accept the distinction.

Well, this is an area where sharp distinctions isn't always possible.  Few areas have sharp delineations.  Besides on this issue, I accept that I'm likely going to be a moderate antihero who pleases no one.

[All Along The Watchtower]

I'll only briefly reply that laws cannot work unless the society for which they are made supports those laws.

Well, it's a good thing the civil rights leaders of the 1950s and 1960s waited for the rest of society to support them, rather than demanding change and shaming the government and other institutions into action.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'll only briefly reply that laws cannot work unless the society for which they are made supports those laws.

Well, it's a good thing the civil rights leaders of the 1950s and 1960s waited for the rest of society to support them, rather than demanding change and shaming the government and other institutions into action.

The society as a whole did support those laws when they were enacted.  Granted, had it been solely the southern states involved it wouldn't have happened (at least not then).  That era and issue is an exception that helps prove the rule.  In general, social engineering by laws doesn't work, but in this case it did because the national majority used the law to impose its values on a minority (southern whites) that was using its status a local majority to require discrimination of a third group (non-whites).  Even then it worked only because those southern whites still largely wanted to be part of the larger group, Americans.

However, a similar three group system doesn't really exist with LGBT issues, at least not yet.  Time will tell whether it does develop in this country.  It unfortunately could tho I doubt it.  Certainly the South and non-coastal West have been slower to change opinions on the same-sex marriage issue, but they have been changing and unless that change halts, then by the time a provision banning LGBT discrimination could be enacted into national law, society as a whole will be broadly antagonistic towards those who discriminate against the LGBT community.  However, if my optimism that the change that has been going won't halt is incorrect and it does halt,  then my pessimism  says to me that those who do want to discriminate won't care what the larger society thinks of them.  If we do reach that unhappy point, we may well need such laws, but it won't be because of any expectation they will change the hearts and minds of anyone.

[DC Al Fine]

To add to what Ernest said, activism and legislating are different activities. If you're trying to make a major change to society, you want at least a significant minority of public support before you make it law. To do otherwise is to risk a backlash and setting the cause back 10 years. This doesn't preclude activism of course, but it does change the approach.

[bedstuy]

To add to what Ernest said, activism and legislating are different activities. If you're trying to make a major change to society, you want at least a significant minority of public support before you make it law. To do otherwise is to risk a backlash and setting the cause back 10 years. This doesn't preclude activism of course, but it does change the approach.

What are you saying?  What law?  What major change to society?  Y'all who are defending these laws (or are you?) need to articulate yourselves in a manner that I can comprehend.

What are the limits of this right to not associate with gay people?  Should it extend to large corporations?  Should it extend to housing, employment and healthcare?   Or would you limit it to individual small businesses like an individual photographer and religious organizations?

Putting aside the legality, wouldn't you agree that refusing service to someone on account of their sexual orientation is despicable behavior? 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Putting aside the legality, wouldn't you agree that refusing service to someone on account of their sexual orientation is despicable behavior? 

Of course it is, but just because something is despicable does not automatically mean that it should be illegal.

[bedstuy]

Putting aside the legality, wouldn't you agree that refusing service to someone on account of their sexual orientation is despicable behavior? 

Of course it is, but just because something is despicable does not automatically mean that it should be illegal.

Maybe not automatically, but it certainly weighs in favor of protecting gay people. 

I'm just not following the counter argument here.  On one hand, there is a tremendous problem for someone who is denied employment, access to housing, civil rights, credit, schooling, etc on account of sexual orientation.  On the other hand, what?  There's an interest in people having the ability to engage in despicable behavior?  I don't understand why that's giving you pause.