It's 7 in the morning, I still have to make my lunch, do my makeup, and finish getting ready for work. Yet here I find myself, writing a blog about a very touchy subject to most of the people I know here in Arizona.
I stayed up rather late last night reading a blog about the "Anti-Gay Law" or SB 1062 from Matt Walsh. You can find the blog post here.
I won't go into much detail about it as Matt does an excellent job debunking most "haters'" problems with the bill, and does it so eloquently. I will merely highlight a few things that I found to be very eye opening and wonderful points.
First off, this isn't a law against gay people. This is a law to protect businesses from participating in acts that they find morally wrong. If a gay couple can sue a baker, photographer, and florist for not wanting to participate in their gay nuptials because the find that morally wrong, why can't I sue a Kosher deli for not catering a non-kosher meal? That is something that they follow with their religion. I just don't see the connection in allowing a Christian baker to go down for something they choose to follow with their religion.
Some people are saying that this is combining church and state. While I agree to some extent, not having this is in place is not allowing people to practice their religion freely, which is supposed to be protected in the First Amendment.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, OR prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
This law is not about Christianity only. This is about protecting every religion to allow them to practice freely. And one thing I don't understand, is why these couples in New Mexico, Washington, and Colorado were able to sue someone for practicing their first amendment rights. The government just came in and prohibited them from their "free exercise thereof."
Secondly, many people are saying that this law is the "Jim Crow law of the 21st century." Like Matt states on his blog,
"We should remember that blacks were in chains in this country. They
were literally treated as less than human. They could be legally
murdered and beaten and starved. They were set apart, cast aside, and
violently and systematically oppressed.
Not only are gays in a better position than this, but the two
scenarios are diametrically opposite. Unlike historical blacks, gays are
afforded special legal protections. They are celebrated by the
president, Hollywood, pop culture, the media, mainstream culture, and
most major corporations.
They are hoisted on a pedestal by only the most
powerful and influential people in the country.
Black people ought to deliver a sound verbal smackdown to any
historically illiterate gasbag who even attempts to paint the slightest
equivalency between the suffering of blacks and gays."
Again, I don't see the connection between this bill and "Jim Crow."
Lastly, and this is my favorite part, some comments are definitely worth mentioning. One guy got his panties in a wad because if you are a business, you are to "serve to the public, meaning everybody." Another commenter stated "I build websites for a living. Should I be required to build a porn site for someone just because I 'provide a public service?'" What a great way to put it, and I applaud you kind sir.
Another commenter wrote "What you are missing is that the constitution is guaranteeing freedom
from discrimination from the government. Citizens are left with their
freedom to discriminate in tact. The government is slowly attempting
to push their obligation onto citizens, which erodes our rights."
Yes, I agree that there are a lot of changes that need to be made before this ever becomes actual law. I believe it is written poorly, but the premise and grounds for needing this are very real.
And on that note, I end this post so I can get ready and go to work. Have a wonderful week/end folks :)