Arizona Senators: Legalizing Homophobia?

By: Toni Matthews-El - February 25, 2014

In a so-called attempt to preserve the religious sanctity of Arizona businesses, lawmakers in the state passed legislation making it perfectly legal to boot someone out of your establishment for being gay. So long as you’re really really really religious, it’s perfectly fine.

Because nothing pisses off Jesus quite like giving homosexuals coffee.

Senators Adam Driggs, Steve Pierce and Bob Worsley, all of who initially voted for the bill, have had a serious change of heart.

Now they are practically begging Arizona Governor Jan Brewer to veto the measure. The bill was a mistake!

Said the trio in a letter, “While our sincere intent in voting for this bill was to create a shield for all citizens’ religious liberties, the bill has instead been mischaracterized by its opponents as a sword for religious intolerance.”

Even though they intended to pass a law making it perfectly legal for someone, in a display of blatant bigotry, to put a customer on the sidewalk for simply being gay…they were completely and utterly misunderstood and their bill’s intent “mischaracterized.”

Of course this change of sentiment regarding the bill is about the potential harm caused to targeted citizens, right?

“These allegations are causing our state immeasurable harm.”

Never mind, then. Potential harm to affected state citizens, their families, and children is completely irrelevant; what everyone really cares about is how Arizona comes out looking in all this. Gotcha, thanks.

In all seriousness, Arizona has good reason to be concerned as to how the state looks, considering this isn’t the first time that unarguably bigoted laws have been passed by the state legislative body.

Those in support of the bill call it a response to “growing hostility against freedom” in the United States.

As Arizona lawmakers scramble to deal with the public backlash, one has to ask why is it that bigotry is always considered the standing pillar of freedom by some people?

Image via Wikimedia Commons

Toni Matthews-El

About the Author

Toni Matthews-ElToni Matthews-El hails from the land of chunked pumpkins and people who come to a complete stop before making any and every turn. When she isn't contributing articles to WebProNews, she spends her time freelance writing, cheering Liverpool FC, and enjoying life as a hair flower connoisseur. Disclaimer: Written opinions do not necessarily reflect that of WebProNews or its affiliates

View all posts by Toni Matthews-El
  • smithsson

    I sense there’s well intended, but ill conceived ideas in the general populous. I have not read the bill myself, as I’m sure many who have expressed an opinion upon the matter. But there are cases where small private businesses today should be able to object or reject certain customers based upon their religious beliefs. To those, I would equate to an objection of conscience. Even today, secular pharmaceutical businesses have stopped supplying drugs to state and federal authorities which are necessary for executions. Much in the same way, businesses such as cake shops should be free to reject wedding cakes businesses, practicing rabbis should be able to reject for bar mitzvah services, circumcision services; photography services should be able to reject unusual services that are offensive to their religious practices or out of their realm of expertise. Catholic or baptist hospitals, adoption centers, and health services should be able to reject services related to abortions, or certain teachings related to “safe sex”. Private religious schools should be able to teach freely opposing views rather than being forced to teach related secular views EXCLUSIVELY. And news media should be able to express their views without the FCC oversight forcefully editing every word, opinion, or freedom of thought.

    Frankly, in my view, politics has entered and encroached a bit too much into the private realm of personal space, personal conscience, personal faith, and belief; much to the harm of the business, the practice of law, the social services, as well as employment costs, and over-regulation.