Arizona recently passed a senate bill that would allow business owners to refuse service to homosexuals and others who may not live a lifestyle in alignment with the business owner’s religious beliefs.
The state has recently been known for passing some questionable legislation; note the immigration act that pretty allows you to be pulled over for looking Mexican. So, I was surprised to hear that the bill was later vetoed by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer who said the bill caused more problems than it solved.
Although the bill was vetoed in Arizona, I think the bigger problem is the fact that it passed in the first place. That alone speaks volumes about how far America has come since the 1960s civil rights movement when it comes to allowing equal rights to every American citizen. The bills basis was to protect the religious freedom of business owners, but in protecting their freedoms, Arizona striped gays of the same rights Christians and other religious groups are entitled to.
Not only on a moral level, but financially speaking, is a homosexual’s money not as green as a heterosexual? Serving a gay person as a customer at whatever type of business you own, does not in any way inflict their beliefs on you or condone their behavior. Is it not enough for businesses to publicly identify as a religious organization that does not condone homosexuality. Chick-fil-a for example, does not support homosexuality and most people know that. That alone probably stops a large percentage of homosexuals from eating there, which gets the people they don’t want out of their stores anyway.
The bill was vetoed, but religious groups in Arizona say they will continue to diligently fight for their rights–which, I’m not exactly sure they lost. Shouldn’t it be homosexuals fighting for their rights that religious groups are attempting to take because they don’t agree. I’m not sure how the politics on a vetoed bill work, but from my limited political science knowledge I assume it would go to the supreme court.
You could ask why this post is even relevant since the bill was vetoed, but for starters I think anything that potentially infringes on people’s civil right is relevant. Not only that, but there are currently five other states (Georgia, Idaho, Mississippi, Missouri and Oklahoma) that are still toying with similar legislation. With many of those states being in the South and the South’s reputation being notoriously traditional conservative, southern Baptist, it worries me that bills stripping people of their rights will continue to pass.
Other states that have considered legislation as such, but are stalled include Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Ohio, South Dakota and Tennessee.
braynestorming 