Gay Discrimination Initiatives Taking a Beating in US

Must be 18 to enter! Talk about anything but Football

Moderator: Team Captains

Post Reply
South Pender
Legend
Posts: 2779
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 9:24 am
Location: Vancouver weekdays; Gulf Islands on weekends

After a spate of what have seemed to many to be mean-spirited and duplicitous discriminatory bills introduced in a number of US state legislatures, there seems to be some light at the end of the tunnel, with these initiatives going down in defeat. The best-known example of this kind of bill is the one proposed and supported in both houses of the Arizona legislature, but (thankfully) vetoed by Governor Jan Brewer. It now appears that similar initiatives in 12 other states too are biting the dust, or are likely to be defeated. The intended effect of all of these bills has been to discriminate against gays by allowing businesses and service providers (like doctors, for example) to refuse products or service to gay people. The stated rationale is that these providers should be able to exercise their religious freedom to act in a way that is consistent with their religious beliefs (and thus they're referred to, by their supporters, as "Religious Freedom" initiatives). So, for example, if a restaurant owner or doctor believes that homosexuality is against his or her religious beliefs, s/he should be able legally to refuse service to a gay person or persons. Most, if not all, of the sponsors are right-wing Christians who seem to fail to understand that treating others badly is antithetical to the core of Christian teachings. Anyway, this is a good sign. Here's the story, by Emma Margolin of MSNBC:

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/religious-li ... lls-states

It's hard to know just how much of the opposition to these proposed bills has come from positions of morality and fairness and how much has come from the realization of the catastrophic business outcomes for the state that would attend passage into law of such initiatives.
User avatar
Sir Purrcival
Hall of Famer
Posts: 4621
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Comox Valley

Well in the case of Arizona, you would have thought that in the Arizona Legislature who you would expect to be sensitive to the needs of their business community would have thought a little bit more about it before passing the bill in the first place. There seems to be some kind of fundamental disconnect in the thought processes of those who seem to think that the right to refuse service is some kind of unlimited power. While you might be able to make a case for refusing to perform some kind of religious right (such as a gay marriage ceremony), there can be no justification for refusing services where homosexuality is not a specific issue. For example, under the Arizona Law, could a baker refuse to sell bread to a gay individual because their religious beliefs say "We don' t like gays"? Certainly seemed as if the legislation could be interpreted that way. Or how about a clothing store or a hairdresser? It is always a slippery slope when you start denying access to resources and services. While their may be some very specific and select circumstances where that is acceptable, those situations are by far and away a minority. The fact that this bill got as far as the Governor is disturbing in it's own right. It indicates that a whole bunch of supposedly, intelligent and educated individuals saw nothing wrong with this bill.

Maybe I am a pessimist but money talks and I think that some people finally started to realize the potential litigation costs that would likely have followed had this passed into law. I am doubtful of some sudden wave of morality. If it had been there to begin with, this never would have gotten to the Governor's desk
Tell me how long must a fan be strong? Ans. Always.
South Pender
Legend
Posts: 2779
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 9:24 am
Location: Vancouver weekdays; Gulf Islands on weekends

Sir Purrcival wrote:Well in the case of Arizona, you would have thought that in the Arizona Legislature who you would expect to be sensitive to the needs of their business community would have thought a little bit more about it before passing the bill in the first place. There seems to be some kind of fundamental disconnect in the thought processes of those who seem to think that the right to refuse service is some kind of unlimited power. While you might be able to make a case for refusing to perform some kind of religious right (such as a gay marriage ceremony), there can be no justification for refusing services where homosexuality is not a specific issue. For example, under the Arizona Law, could a baker refuse to sell bread to a gay individual because their religious beliefs say "We don' t like gays"? Certainly seemed as if the legislation could be interpreted that way. Or how about a clothing store or a hairdresser? It is always a slippery slope when you start denying access to resources and services. While their may be some very specific and select circumstances where that is acceptable, those situations are by far and away a minority. The fact that this bill got as far as the Governor is disturbing in it's own right. It indicates that a whole bunch of supposedly, intelligent and educated individuals saw nothing wrong with this bill.

Maybe I am a pessimist but money talks and I think that some people finally started to realize the potential litigation costs that would likely have followed had this passed into law. I am doubtful of some sudden wave of morality. If it had been there to begin with, this never would have gotten to the Governor's desk
All good points. The initiative, if passed, would definitely have permitted an Arizona baker to refuse to sell bread to a gay individual because of his or her (the baker's) religious beliefs. These initiatives have arisen in states with both the house and senate dominated by Republicans, and are pretty-much all driven by the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party. The more mainstream Republicans for which business interests outweigh religious interests have been instrumental in shooting down these ill-conceived bills. That, plus the enormous pressure brought on the state houses and, in particular, I would imagine, the Governors by big business and chambers of commerce. The proposal, followed by demise, of these bills nicely illustrates, I think, the fundamental rift presently in the Republican Party.
User avatar
Toppy Vann
Hall of Famer
Posts: 9789
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 12:56 pm

As I heard it on CNN it was bizarre and IIRC the seller would have to state why they were refusing and cite religion. While I can't foresee many doing that it was pretty stupid.

The head of the Ariz. Tech. council slammed it as they have members hiring and trying to lure tech/creative people to Arizona or raise venture capital or even IPO and the raising of this in the state legislature is a set back to them as it colours how people might think of the state as a not friendly place to do business. It got the Governors veto but even she had to make a pretty heavy statement as to why she did it.

We forget at times that Jesus welcomed everyone.

I do find though that many younger practicing Christians including Catholics have no trouble in fully participating and picking what they will adhere to and even partake of the sacraments of the Catholic Church (communion) despite failing to confess their sins fully or even at all. It is not the same for my generation where Catholics who got divorced or chose to get an abortion no longer feel comfortable and just stop going to Church.
"Ability without character will lose." - Marv Levy
Post Reply