Jack-Hammer
YOU WILL RESPECT MY AUTHORITAH!!!!
Throughout today, probably the biggest story being covered on most news channels has been the Arizona bill called SB1062. As with most anything that has any degree of relevancy in today's world, SB1062 has generated a great deal of controversy and debate and Arizona governor Jan Brewer has found herself right smack in the middle of it.
For those unaware of what SB1062 is, it's essentially an amendment to the already existing Religious Freedom Restoration Act. SB1062 would allow businesses to refuse to service homosexuals as long as the proprietors were doing so based solely on their personal religious beliefs. The entire situation came about a while back when a female photographer refused to service a gay couple by shooting wedding photos. The woman insists that it isn't because she's personally offended by homosexuality, but that she felt that her participation would be a means of condoning such a union and that violates her religious beliefs that, religiously speaking, homosexuality is wrong.
Those who support the bill believe that it isn't an attempt at discrimination masquerading as state law, but that it's an attempt to protect people's religious freedoms. Opponents of the law, in a nutshell, say that it's nothing more than the latest attempt at treating gays and lesbians as second class citizens who don't have the same rights as heterosexuals.
Many people, both supporters and opponents, however, have taken some by surprise as they're considering the ramifications of this bill not so much due to social means, but economic ones. This bill could certainly put a dent in certain areas of Arizona's economy. Some representatives of Fortune 500 companies, such as Marriott, have told Brewer that this bill could hurt the hospitality industry, AKA hotels. The CEO of American Airlines, Doug Parker, agrees and that if she signs the bill into law, it could negatively affect tourism to the state. The NFL has also scheduled Super Bowl XLIX to take place in the Phoenix suburb of Glendale next year. Hosting the Super Bowl is essentially a license to print money and if this law is passed, it could cause the NFL to reconsider hosting the event in Arizona next year. There's no confirmed word that they will or won't, but it's a real possibility. After all, over the past several years, Arizona's image hasn't exactly been that of a "people friendly" state, despite what Arizona Senator Al Melvin said recently. Arizona's extremely right wing stance on extremely lax gun laws, harsh stances on immigration that some say encourages racial profiling and, in the eyes of some, perceived animosity towards gays and minorities have really drawn a lot of negative attention.
Based on word from CNN, most people expect that Brewer will veto the bill. Even if she didn't, there are legal analysts that say there's a very strong possibility that the law could ultimately be declared unconstitutional if it were to be challenged; and you know it would be challenged if passed.
I can understand both sides of this issue. There are countless number of any religion who believe their holy books are divinely inspired and almost all of them contain passages that condemn homosexuality as a sin. Is it possible to be a devout Christian, for example, who bears no ill will or prejudice towards anyone yet still believe that someone is living a sinful life? Yes it is. Believing that someone is living a sinful life doesn't make you a bigot, or does it mean that you believe that they're necessarily "bad" people. However, at the same time, a law like this could open the flood gates to genuine discrimination by people who're falsely hiding behind religion. A sad fact is that there are people who identify themselves as Christian, yet who don't exactly live a Christian life themselves, and who don't seem particularly religious who claim to dislike gays because they just don't think it's right. This law could allow them to cloak themselves in religious freedom to refuse service to homosexuals even if they themselves aren't particularly religious or even practice any religious beliefs. And, of course, if you asked them to offer some sort of proof of their beliefs, you'd open up a whole other can of worms by pissing off genuine Christians.
Part of being American means that you have to endure what you personally do and don't agree with or life side by side every day. That's simply how it is and, as a result, it means that we're gonna bump heads sometimes. It's the same thing in regards to religion; for instance, Christianity preaches tolerance, acceptance and brotherhood. It doesn't mean towards only those who're just like you, who share your beliefs, who're the same skin tone as you are, etc. There are genuinely good, well meaning people who feel that this Arizona law if protecting their rights, but the problem is that there are also a lot of prejudiced bigots that would take advantage of this law in a heartbeat because it gives them a weapon to strike out against gays and lesbians. Religious beliefs in a business, in my opinion, should be used as the "No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service" policy of the 21st Century.
For those unaware of what SB1062 is, it's essentially an amendment to the already existing Religious Freedom Restoration Act. SB1062 would allow businesses to refuse to service homosexuals as long as the proprietors were doing so based solely on their personal religious beliefs. The entire situation came about a while back when a female photographer refused to service a gay couple by shooting wedding photos. The woman insists that it isn't because she's personally offended by homosexuality, but that she felt that her participation would be a means of condoning such a union and that violates her religious beliefs that, religiously speaking, homosexuality is wrong.
Those who support the bill believe that it isn't an attempt at discrimination masquerading as state law, but that it's an attempt to protect people's religious freedoms. Opponents of the law, in a nutshell, say that it's nothing more than the latest attempt at treating gays and lesbians as second class citizens who don't have the same rights as heterosexuals.
Many people, both supporters and opponents, however, have taken some by surprise as they're considering the ramifications of this bill not so much due to social means, but economic ones. This bill could certainly put a dent in certain areas of Arizona's economy. Some representatives of Fortune 500 companies, such as Marriott, have told Brewer that this bill could hurt the hospitality industry, AKA hotels. The CEO of American Airlines, Doug Parker, agrees and that if she signs the bill into law, it could negatively affect tourism to the state. The NFL has also scheduled Super Bowl XLIX to take place in the Phoenix suburb of Glendale next year. Hosting the Super Bowl is essentially a license to print money and if this law is passed, it could cause the NFL to reconsider hosting the event in Arizona next year. There's no confirmed word that they will or won't, but it's a real possibility. After all, over the past several years, Arizona's image hasn't exactly been that of a "people friendly" state, despite what Arizona Senator Al Melvin said recently. Arizona's extremely right wing stance on extremely lax gun laws, harsh stances on immigration that some say encourages racial profiling and, in the eyes of some, perceived animosity towards gays and minorities have really drawn a lot of negative attention.
Based on word from CNN, most people expect that Brewer will veto the bill. Even if she didn't, there are legal analysts that say there's a very strong possibility that the law could ultimately be declared unconstitutional if it were to be challenged; and you know it would be challenged if passed.
I can understand both sides of this issue. There are countless number of any religion who believe their holy books are divinely inspired and almost all of them contain passages that condemn homosexuality as a sin. Is it possible to be a devout Christian, for example, who bears no ill will or prejudice towards anyone yet still believe that someone is living a sinful life? Yes it is. Believing that someone is living a sinful life doesn't make you a bigot, or does it mean that you believe that they're necessarily "bad" people. However, at the same time, a law like this could open the flood gates to genuine discrimination by people who're falsely hiding behind religion. A sad fact is that there are people who identify themselves as Christian, yet who don't exactly live a Christian life themselves, and who don't seem particularly religious who claim to dislike gays because they just don't think it's right. This law could allow them to cloak themselves in religious freedom to refuse service to homosexuals even if they themselves aren't particularly religious or even practice any religious beliefs. And, of course, if you asked them to offer some sort of proof of their beliefs, you'd open up a whole other can of worms by pissing off genuine Christians.
Part of being American means that you have to endure what you personally do and don't agree with or life side by side every day. That's simply how it is and, as a result, it means that we're gonna bump heads sometimes. It's the same thing in regards to religion; for instance, Christianity preaches tolerance, acceptance and brotherhood. It doesn't mean towards only those who're just like you, who share your beliefs, who're the same skin tone as you are, etc. There are genuinely good, well meaning people who feel that this Arizona law if protecting their rights, but the problem is that there are also a lot of prejudiced bigots that would take advantage of this law in a heartbeat because it gives them a weapon to strike out against gays and lesbians. Religious beliefs in a business, in my opinion, should be used as the "No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service" policy of the 21st Century.
