The woman who led the charge to get that anti-gay law passed in Arizona had this to say after Governor Brewer vetoed it:
“Opponents were desperate to distort this bill rather than debate the merits. Essentially, they succeeded in getting a veto of a bill that does not even exist”
Er, madam, I don’t want to call you stupid, since you and your group were persuasive enough to get the thing passed in both houses of the Arizona legislature in the first place, but let me explain this: once the bill is in written form, it exists. Once it passes out of various committees onto the floor of the House and Senate, it exists. Once it passes both houses, it exists. It doesn’t become law until the Governor signs it. Is that what you meant?
Whatever you meant, you and your organization are a nasty mean outfit which deserves to be slapped down by a politician who might even agree with the bigotry you tried to enable but knew the people and businesses in the state she governs would suffer large financial consequences if she let it become law. They didn’t matter to you, did they? All you cared about was trying to hurt people whose lifestyle you disagree with, who have never done a thing to you and yours, and who ask nothing more than to be allowed to live, work and play in the same state you do.
I hope you recognize the tide of history is about to sweep past you.
If you read the bill as a dispassionate robot and totally without the context under which it was drafted, then the argument that it is targeted at gays is correct. The bill mentions neither homosexuality nor Christianity. It simply states that you don’t have to fear government intervention to make you serve someone who violates your deeply held religious principles.
But they can’t have it both ways. They can’t intend to create a law that allows Christians to discriminate against gays and not be specific about it (and, thus, explicitly homophobic). Despite their pathetic “but no one here discriminates” excuses, this bill would have made it legal for anyone to claim religious freedom in refusing to serve anyone for any reason.
I almost wanted it to go through just to hear the howls of victimhood the first time a Mulsim or Jew or Atheist refused to serve a Christian because of their deeply held religious beliefs.
Rats. I meant “the argument that it is NOT targeted at gays is correct.”
Yeah, except that the howl “We’re victims” was the excuse for writing this legislation in the first place. Christianity is a persecuted faith in this country, don’t you know, despite its status as the principal religion in the U.S.