Arizona Governor Governor Jan Brewer on Wednesday vetoed a controversial bill that would have, in effect, legalized wide-ranging discrimination of homosexuals as an extension of religious freedom. Apple, along with a number of other major U.S. corporations, banded together to have the bill shot down.
Good.
This…
On the one hand (and in the majority) I’m glad LGBT won’t be treated unfairly.
But a small part of me hopes Arizona goes a little too far… which apparently they haven’t yet, somehow… and faces an explosive shitstorm across the US and internationally.
Of course, it wouldn’t be fair to the LGBT or the non-douchebag straight residents. (I’m not even sure what to call that second group? The non-assholes? The sane?) So like I said, it’s just a small part.
Everyone keeps saying “would have legalized.” It’s already legal. As in most states today, gays and lesbians are not a protected class in Arizona. Nor are they at the federal level.
It would have legalized much more general wide-ranging discrimination (i.e. against everyone else), but you can discriminate against the LGBT community to your heart’s content with or without this crappy backwards bill.
Colin you couldn’t be more wrong. It isn’t legal to discriminate as several court cases have shown.
Ugh, there was nothing discriminatory about this bill. If I own a company I should have all the rights in the word to decide who I do business with. It’s called free speech. We shouldn’t have to change our laws due to a lifestyle choice others make.
Negatory. It isn’t legal to discriminate against a member of a protected class. You can discriminate against anyone else, at any time, for any reason. If I don’t like Jim’s beard, I can refuse to serve him Heineken.
The famous New Mexico photographer and Oregon baker cases occurred because, unlike most of the country, NM and OR law considers gays and lesbians to be a protected class. Arizona doesn’t. Most other states (28 of ’em) don’t. The Federal Civil Rights Act doesn’t.
In most of the country, GLBT people currently have no security in employment, in housing, or in conducting business.
That right is already there. When I worked for a bookseller, we refused service to people plenty of times. You don’t even have to say why, and it’s better that you don’t. This law was superfluous, and the fact the ones who wrote it used a recent lawsuit brought by homosexuals who were refused service, it was pretty clear the intent this law had.