So I’m sure you’ve heard that the governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer, vetoed a contoversial bill, SB 1062.
Basically, SB 1062, if it had been passed, would have given business owners in Arizona the right to refuse services to gay people, because serving gay people would be contrary to their religious beliefs. Gov. Brewer stated that the bill was broadly worded and could result in unintended and negative consequences."
Both of Arizona’s federal senators tweeted soon thereafter, saying that she did the right thing.
The liberal Washington post tweeted, “Arizona governor vetoes controversial anti-gay bill.”
The conservative Wall Street Journal tweeted, “Arizona governor vetoes religious freedom bill.”
My 02 - I’m not sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing. While I’m a strong supporter of gay rights, I’m also a strong supporter of individual freedeom–including the freedom to decide which customers you do not want to serve.
Texas doesn’t yet allow gay marriage. But if it did, I would feel no remorse about doing a tax return for a gay couple. Their money’s just as green as “straight” money. But I feel like I should get the right to choose not to.
A commercial enterprise shouldn’t be allowed to refuse service to someone based on their religion, race, sexual preference, etc., regardless of the personal beliefs of the owner. I have no problem with people associating, or not associating, with whomever they please, but don’t hang out a shingle if you aren’t prepared to serve people you don’t like.
In the perfect world, i hope people can look past this gay “issue” because unless it your husband or wife, you shouldn’t really care about who people sleep with.
And how would they know if people are gay to begin with? do they make you fill out a form before you go in?
Let’s just say they do not allow 2 guys go in linking arms (or 2 girls), let them be, i dont’ think it’s that bad, there are many restaurants that do “themes” like “no ties allowed”, “no cellphones allowed”, “no cops allowed”, “no suits allowed”, “no underage allowed”…
So what if the owner chooses to not serve certain people? it’s not really imposing any harm to people. If i were a lesbian or a gay man i just go spend my money elsewhere.
Would you rather have these restaurants open to all but secretly spit in the food when they serve gay people?
In Nana’s example, there is an implicit assumption that there are competitors who are more understanding. In small communities, there often are limited competitors, not to mention, limited understanding.
Yeah, I can’t say I agree with discrimation, sorry. Bill should be veto’d. If my religion said no service to blacks, is that cool? Or how about no service to irrational hardline bible thumpers? This is just stupid.
I don’t see how it infringes on anyones religious beliefs to sell shoes to a gay guy. Jesus would have done it. Not only are these people just absolute losers, but they’re not even good at practicing their own religion.
Religion is strange, and it has the advantage of being enshrined in the Bill of Rights first. This makes things challenging when people say, it’s against my religion to pay taxes, or have fewer than two wives, or not get welfare paid for by others, or whatever.