4 responses

  1. Arthur
    February 27, 2014

    The religious are not uber-citizens deserving of special rights beyond the 1st Amendment.

  2. Jack
    February 27, 2014

    Arizona ranks as one of the LEAST religious states ironically.

  3. Nathaniel
    February 27, 2014

    Here is what I don’t get: If you are merely affirming rights people are already entitled to, why codify it? Or, rather, why extra-codify it? This bill wouldn’t have stopped the legislature from later adding orientation and gender identity to anti-discrimination rules. Nor did it undo bans on discriminating against people based on sex, race or religion. So, the primary reason for this law is moot.

    I saw one defender of the bill keep saying “We don’t discriminate in Arizona. We don’t want discrimination in Arizona.” It left me with the same question: What, then, is the point of the bill? Either it would do what its opponents claimed, or it would do nothing. If the first, then it was a bad bill. If the latter, then it was a pointless bill. Either way, it shouldn’t have made it to the Governor’s desk. Of course, it may have been telling that this defender kept denouncing discrimination against “fellow human beings.” It might be that, to him, divorcees and unwed mothers are more human than LGBT people.

  4. Priya Lynn
    February 27, 2014

    Nathaniel, I think the promoters of bills like these have extreme congnitive dissonance. They know the purpose of the bill is to discriminate and that’s what they want to do but they want to think they’re not bad people who discriminate so they tell themselves the bill doesn’t discriminate even though on another level that is exactly what they’re after. They believe reality can be whatever they choose to characterize it as, if they say its not discriminatory then somehow the paradox doesn’t exist.

Leave a Reply




Back to top
mobile desktop