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

[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"?

[SteveRogers]

Vetoed

[SteveRogers]

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???

[SteveRogers]

I think once you start defining your religious liberty as a right to tell other people how live their lives and a right to only associate with people of the same religious practices, you turn the idea of individual liberty on its head.  If you want personal freedom, you need to accept the exercise of personal freedom from other people. 

This is all true, but it goes both ways. People shouldn't be able to tell homophobic businessmen how to live their lives anymore than they should be able to tell gays how to live theirs'.

I agree to a point, but it's a disingenuous comparison.  Being tolerant of other types of people is not equivalent to being tolerant of other people's intolerance.  Homophobia is wrong and is a set of beliefs, not a group of people who immigrated to this country for Homophobiavania. 

This. Tolerance doesn't mean pretending that horrible people aren't horrible.

[SteveRogers]

Being tolerant of other types of people is not equivalent to being tolerant of other people's intolerance.  Homophobia is wrong and is a set of beliefs, not a group of people who immigrated to this country for Homophobiavania. 

This. Tolerance doesn't mean pretending that horrible people aren't horrible.

And to the homophobes, homos are horrible people.  That's why you need a much better reason than "it's horrible" if you're going to justify government action that forces people to do things they would rather not do.

'

Of course. I was referring to the common rebuttal that conservatives give when a celebrity (like Duck Dynasty guy) is publicly ridiculed for making homophobic remarks. That argument goes something like this: "Liberals sure are hypocrites because they claim to value tolerance, but they sure don't tolerate my homophobia." So I'll offer the extended version of my original comment: Tolerance doesn't mean pretending that horrible people aren't horrible, but it does entail recognizing their right to think horrible thoughts and say horrible things. (Though this should be accompanied by a recognition of the fact that freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism and rebuke for one's speech, but that is a separate matter).

But anyway, once we get  to actual conduct, we must recognize this: It is a demonstrable fact that the way a gay person chooses to live their life will never meaningfully impact the way that a homophobe chooses to live their life. On the other hand, the way in which a homophobic business owner chooses to discriminate against a gay customer can indeed have a negative impact on the latter's quality of life.