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/
"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
Post a Comment