Originally posted by crabman82:
as i understand the now vetoed law, wasnt it saying a business can decide who it serves and who it doesnt and what not? if thats the case how did it become all about gay people? seems like there would be a case for dozens of different types of discrimination.
The law was stupid, it wasn't nearly as bad as someone stated and there was a lot of disinformation being put out there but it was more of an answer in search of a problem. Business owners from all around the state basically said that the law wasn't needed at all. It was one of those things were a nutty legislator was sitting around with nothing to do better with his time than to come up with something that nobody asked for. It was pushed on the basis of religious freedom, chiefly from the state government.....ie........a Muslim or Jew being made to serve pork.....but it opened up so many cans of worms due to it being so broad that there is no way that Brewer would ever have supported it.
Kind of a big government doctrine from supposed small government legislators. There's scenario's brought up in this bill that the people who came up with it never considered. On talk radio they brought up the possibility that a devout Muslim, and there are many Muslim owned businesses out here, could refuse entry to a single woman that was not accompanied by a male member of her family and all sorts of shenanigans that possibly could have occurred as a result.
That said, the gay issue was way overblown. In Arizona there is no statute for the protection of discrimination based on sexuality. If an Arizona business owner currently wants to deny service based on someone's sexuality, they can do so legally although without being protected from being recognized as an a*****e and having their business boycotted.
[ Edited by Phoenix49ers on Feb 26, 2014 at 5:31 PM ]