Skip to main content

Arizona State Senator Steve Yarbrough makes a ridiculous SB 1062 comparison

Fortunately, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer vetoed SB 1062 yesterday, which would have permitted Arizona professionals license to refuse service to homosexuals on religious grounds. However, the veto didn't occur before some Arizona Republicans decided to engage in what I like to call crazy-talk. With regard to the bill, Arizona State Senator Steve Yarbrough had the following to say to Randi Kaye of CNN:

"The hypothetical that I think is the most useful is: let's assume that we have three gentlemen who are devout Jewish fellows who form a corporation and go in the catering business. And they're doing that and then I come to them and I say, 'I'd like for you to cater my event, but I would like for you to provide pork products.' And they say, 'Well, I'm sorry. Our sincerely held religious beliefs prevent us from doing that.' And my response is, 'Well then I sue you, and I get damages against you."

If that was the most "useful" hypothetical conservatives could come up with, perhaps that's the main reason Governor Brewer vetoed the bill. Yarbrough and his ilk really need to take a beginner course on analogies, because yet again, they failed miserably on that front.

First of all, catering services provide customers with specific menus from which to choose. If I go to an Italian restaurant and demand to get an Indian or Thai dish, chances are I'm going be escorted out a very disappointed (and hungry) individual, and it would have nothing to do with discrimination. It's not like I can go to a movie theater, order a small popcorn, a small soft drink, and spaghetti with a side of garlic toast, and sue them for damages due to that particular theater (and most others) not offering spaghetti and garlic toast.

A more reasonable comparison would have been for Mr. Yarbrough to have said, "It'd be like if a Muslim-owned hardware store refused to service Christians..." ...and what would Mr. Yarbrough's thoughts on such a hypothetical be? Come on? What are they? I'm waiting...

Secondly, if Mr. Yarbrough and other SB 1062 supporters want to be consistent, they'd have to refuse service, not only to homosexuals, but to so many other people due to all of the abominations listed in the Bible. Heck, chances are, Mr. Yarbrough couldn't be served due to an abominable act of his in the past. If a place says "open to the public," that's exactly what it should mean, and not, "open to the public, well, except for them gays."

Lastly, "pork-eaters" don't qualify as a protected class of people under ENDA. So, the comparison fails on multiple levels.

The next time Mr. Yarbrough thinks about passing such a bill, perhaps he should ask himself, "How would I feel if people didn't service me because I am a man, a heterosexual, a Christian, and/or a Republican?"

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/02/26/3332781/arizona-senator-jewish-caterers/

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun...

Face guarding is legal in college football and the NFL

I just wanted to remind fans and announcers especially, that face guarding is legal in both college football and the NFL. It all comes down to contact. So long as a defender doesn't make contact with an intended receiver, he doesn't have to turn around to play the ball. I can't tell you how many times every week I hear announcers talk about face guarding being a penalty. It's not. I even heard one announcer yesterday state, "If the defender doesn't turn around and play the ball, the ref will call pass interference every time." That's simply not true. Courtesy of referee Bill LeMonnier, he says this with regard to the rule at the college level (answered on 8/12/13): "NCAA rules on pass interference require the face guarding to have contact to be a foul. No contact, no foul by NCAA rules." In the NFL rule book, this is written:  "Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to: (a) Contact by a ...