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

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

CNN

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Republicans seem to love this idea, since they've done in Idaho and now (possibly) Arizona too. I have no idea why they think its a good idea for their image.

How likely is it that Jan Brewer signs it?

Brewer's vetoed nutty legislation before, so she's no guarantee on this, but according to the article she has expressed support for letting businesses discriminate.

Sadly, I think it's more likely she will sign than veto it.  The effect this will have on the gubernatorial race should be quite interesting.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

One of the bill's supporters was on CNN defending his law saying that it is merely a 're-enforcement' of federal statute and interpreted it to withstand defenses of lawbreaking in exercise of religious freedom.

See the law for yourself here.  Looks like another one for the courts to interpret, to me.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Doesn't look like McCain has said anything yet.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

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.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

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.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

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.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

McCain and other members of the AZ delegation want Brewer to veto

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Report: Brewer will veto

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

It was apparently only a two page bill

Which is why it is so astonishing that it could be so misinterpreted by the media and by most of the posters in this thread.  SB 1062 is not segregation. It does not even mention gays or sexual orientation and it does not mention discrimination.  It is not specific to a certain religion or religious viewpoint.   Those who that are screaming about how this bill is the reinstatement of the Spanish Inquisition should read this open letter from several law professors:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The national discussion over this bill has been a sick joke, but at least now we know how few people truly value religious liberty, when push comes to shove. 

Yep you're right. The word "gay" isn't technically mentioned in the bill at all. What the text of the bill literally allows is for individuals to claim a burden on their religious liberties as a defense to literally any lawsuit. And this is good because???

It is good if you value religious liberty. If you think that religious liberty is completely irrelevant to the law and the state should be able to compel people to go against their religious beliefs without being challenged or questioned, then it is not good, but I would not want to live in the society you are advocating.

Can you give a specific case, in Arizona, where the state forced a person to act against their religious beliefs that this bill would have prevented?

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

I, for the record, read the whole bill a few days before Brewer vetoed it, and I'm not a legal expert by any means, but it's clear to me that the language is too vague, at least, from a layman's point of view.  That, and the fact that we haven't heard of a real situation in Arizona that would warrant such a law, is why I was opposed to its passage.  It's not because I don't value religious liberty.  That's just ridiculous.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

I still haven't heard any argument for why we should repeal anti-discrimination laws, regardless of the time period.  Discrimination exists today, it will still be around in fifty years, it will still be around in a hundred years.  It doesn't just "go away," it only becomes less and less socially acceptable as the years come and go.  Why does it matter, even, if it's one hundred people getting discriminated against versus one thousand people?  Why should the government legalize bigotry?  No one's forcing you to think a certain way.  You can mutter the n-word under your breath if a black guy walks into your establishment and that's all fine and dandy as long as you treat him the same way you'd treat anyone else.

The bottom line is, we all have to work with people we don't like to work with sometimes.  If you don't have a valid reason to turn a person away, then don't do it.  If you think serving a gay couple food and taking their cash is going to send you to hell, then you have a lot more problems than some anti-discrimination law.