‘Wrapping Your Homophobia Around the Bible!’

[Formaldehyde]

Arizona struggles to remain atop the worst state contest:

PinkNews: Arizona Senate passes bill to make homophobic discrimination LEGAL

A bill to allow homophobic discrimination has been passed in the Arizona Senate.

It would allow religious individuals, groups and businesses the right to refuse to serve gay people.

The state’s Republican controlled Senate voted 17-13 in support of the measure on Wednesday.

Senate Bill 1062 would prevent the state from taking action against individuals and businesses who refuse services to people or groups based on their religious beliefs if such enforcement would “substantially burden” the free exercise of their religion.

Democrats have criticised Republicans over the policy.

“SB 1062 permits discrimination under the guise of religious freedom,” Senate Democratic Leader Anna Tovar said in a statement.

“With the express consent of Republicans in this Legislature, many Arizonans will find themselves members of a separate and unequal class under this law because of their sexual orientation.

“This bill may also open the door to discriminate based on race, familial status, religion, sex, national origin, age or disability.”

A similar bill was quashed by a Senate committee in Kansas yesterday – even though it had already won approval in the state’s House of Representatives.

Arizona has a statute that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The state only legalised same-sex sexual activity in 2001.

Crossfire Explodes over AZ Bill: ‘Wrapping Your Homophobia Around the Bible!’

Crossfire got really heated up Tuesday over the Arizona bill that would allow businesses to refuse service to LGBT individuals. Van Jones posed a provocative question to former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli: “What is the difference between a business owner saying no blacks are allowed here versus no gays are allowed here?” Cuccinelli dismissed the comparison, but CNN columnist LZ Granderson insisted the principle is the same because the bill is just “straight-up, plain nothing but discrimination!”

He told Cuccinelli that it’s not a matter of religious principle, it’s always about protecting the Christian faith, and called him and others out for pushing what he deemed institutionalized homophobia.

“Where in the Bible does Jesus say no to people? He’s always bringing people in! So are you really using this as––you brought up your religious faith, or are you wrapping your homophobia around the Bible and trying to find scriptures that justify your homophobia?”

Cuccinelli scolded Granderson for resorting to a personal attack, but Granderson stood on that point, telling Cuccinelli that he’s made “several remarks over the years that I would classify as homophobic, so I would say that you personally are probably a homophobe.”

Newt Gingrich asked if Catholic priests should be “coerced” into performing gay marriages. Granderson said no, because there’s a difference between churches doing what they want and a public businesses “that’s actually utilizing taxpayer dollars to help sustain itself” discriminating against people.

Cuccinelli insisted, “They undercut a fundamental precept of this country and that is religious freedom.”

Of course the Daily Show had a blast with it, as usual:

Last night, Jon Stewart covered the news surrounding the anti-gay bill in Arizona, looking at how Fox News helped set the culture of fear for religious conservatives that made them pass such a bill in the first place.

I had not realized the extent to which the good pious peoples of Arizona had been subjected to the tyranny of Arizona's — of course, still illegal — gay wedding industry. Let's hear from one of the gentlemen who voted for this bill.

2/24/2014:
ANDERSON COOPER: Can you give me a specific example of someone in Arizona who's been forced to do something against their religious belief or successfully sued because of their faith?

STATE SEN. AL MELVIN, R-AZ: Again, I think if anything, you — this bill is preemptive.

...

ANDERSON COOPER: But you can't cite one example where religious freedom is under attack in Arizona.

STATE SEN. AL MELVIN, R-AZ: Not now, no. But how about tomorrow?

(audience laughter)
"You see, here in Arizona we're all about protecting ourselves from possible futures. It's why I also co-sponsored the Robot Voter ID Bill of 2042. Keep your titanium pinchers off my great-grandkids, ya dirty robot!!"

Hey man, I know how it is, you know. Sitting around, a couple of legislators, it's late at night, and no one's around. The three of you just decide to experiment with intolerance, but you know. (audience laughter) Things go a little too far, and then the next day nobody can make eye contact.

Of course they're having second thoughts. Because the bill they passed was morally repugnant. (audience cheering and applause) As I assume everyone now realizes.

FREDRICKA WHITFIELD (2/22/2014): Critics of the bill say it sanctions discrimination, particularly against gay people. But others could be impacted as well. ... A Muslim could refuse to do business with Christians because he might consider them infidels.

Oh, right, the people who voted for it realized that then Muslims could refuse service to them. Oh, right. But also, they're backing away from it because it's morally repugnant, right?

SEN. JOHN McCAIN, R-AZ (2/25/2014): I hope that Governor Brewer, who's a good friend of mine, will veto. ... Most importantly, it's the impression that it's creating because it is viewed as discriminatory.

No, no, it's not an impression that being created... it's viewed as discriminatory, it's not... but the reason... that's not why you're against it, you're against it because it's morally repugnant.

SEN. JOHN McCAIN, R-AZ (2/25/2014): This can affect tourism, it can affect our state's economy and job creation.

JAN CRAWFORD, CBS (2/26/2014): The Arizona Super Bowl Host Committee says it could jeopardize plans for the state to host next year's game.

And it's morally... you know what? (audience laughter) This is where you are now, Arizona. You've made yourselves too homophobic and dickish for professional football! (massive audience cheering and applause) According to the NFL, our new watchdog of gay rights.

None of the reasons that you guys have cited, the fact that while then maybe Muslims could use it against us, or, oh my God, people won't want to do business with us, have nothing to do with morality. But with so many good reasons not to pass the bill, it makes you wonder how it got this far in the first place. Megyn Kelly has a theory.

MEGYN KELLY (2/25/2014): We hear a lot from folks on the religious right who say they feel religion is under attack. And you know, I look at this bill, and I wonder whether this is a reaction — an overreaction — to people who feel under attack.

Yeah, it's a good point. Could be an overreaction. Where would people of faith, where would Arizonans have gotten the idea that religion is under attack in this country?

FOX NEWS PROMO: Is our nation losing its religious foundation?

SEAN HANNITY PROMO: Should you be punished for your faith?

FOX NEWS PROMO: Who's to blame for our holy breakdown?

FOX NEWS PROMO: Christmas under attack!

FOX NEWS: It's a War on Easter.

FOX NEWS ANCHOR (7/28/2013): It is a war on religion.

GRETCHEN CARLSON (12/24/2012): Call it faith under fire.

STEVE DOOCY (8/22/2012): America's assault on religion.

LAURA INGRAHAM (3/28/2013): Religion under attack.

BILL O'REILLY PROMO: Judeo-Christian tradition is under attack.

TODD STARNES (5/27/2013): Religious liberty is under attack.

SEAN HANNITY (12/1/2010): I don't understand the assault on Christianity.

RABBI ARYEH SPERO (2/1/2012): Catholics that are under assault.

MEGYN KELLY (5/6/2010): Day of unity and faith comes under fire.

(rubs chin and ponders) Why would religious people overreact to that constant barrage of apocalyptic paranoia and outrage? God only knows. We'll be right back.

Videos available at the respective web pages.

What do you think? Will the governor sign it into law? Will other red states try to follow suit? Will the reactionary-dominated Supreme Court not rule it is blatantly unconstitutional?

 

[BvBPL]

Old news. It got vetoed. Who cares now?

 

[KMRblue1027]

You're a good week behind...

 

[Formaldehyde]

Old news. It got vetoed. Who cares now?

The people who care about how basic human rights continue to be threatened by many authoritarian right-wing Christians? Those who might be planning to move to Arizona for health reasons?

 

[BvBPL]

Well, they won. The grassroots campaign paid off and the governor vetoed the bill. Not much more to say about it.

Stop getting hung up on other people being fools and start celebrating the victory.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Whoohoo! We won this time in the incessant fight over intolerance and basic human rights! Good thing the Supreme Court didn't have to get involved!

So, do you think it got vetoed over fears the NFL might not hold the Super Bowl there?

 

[BvBPL]

There you go, son.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Meanwhile, Mississippi passed their own version of the homophobic bill. And this time with bipartisan support!

In late January, weeks before Kansas’ and Arizona’s odious anti-gay segregation bills drew fury across the country, the Mississippi state Senate quietly passed its own viciously homophobic “religious liberty” measure to virtually no fanfare. The bill, which is nearly identical to Arizona’s, would have the same effect as its now-notorious counterparts, allowing any private business to turn away gays at the door. But unlike Kansas’ and Arizona’s bills, which drew fierce Democratic opposition, the Mississippi measure passed with unanimous bipartisan support.

Yes, you read that right: Every single voting member of the state Senate, Republican and Democrat, supported a bill that would effectively allow segregation of gay and straight people throughout Mississippi. (Four state senators didn’t vote, but not for stated political purposes.) At the time, the bill drew no national attention and minimal local coverage. But now, in the shadow of the Arizona debacle, some legislators are starting to back away from their votes—and their excuses don’t quite line up.

The most vocal Democratic apologist for the bill, Sen. David Blount, defended his vote by claiming that he had no idea what he was supporting. “I learned that the bill passed unanimously by the state Senate a month ago to change the state seal also includes language that could legalize discrimination,” Blount stated. This seems highly implausible: The bill does contain an amendment adding “In God We Trust” to the state seal, but it’s a minor, one-page provision tacked on to the end of two and a half pages protecting a religious right to discriminate. Blount’s second claim is even more improbable:

I was not aware (nor was any other Senator or interest group or citizen that I have talked to aware) of this intention or possible result when we voted on the bill on Jan. 31. I am opposed to discrimination of any kind, including discrimination based on sexual orientation. Obviously, I should have (all of us should have) been aware of this.

A video of the debate reveals that senators spent about 12 minutes discussing the bill, never once bringing up the topic of homosexuality. One senator expresses his concern about individuals "praying facing Mecca"; another worries about religious liberty for "devil worshipping" and "voodoo." One particularly lively legislator, who introduced himself as a "foot-stomping, back-slapping Baptist," seemed earnestly confused about the bill's purpose. Yet no senator seemed concerned about the measure's implications for gay rights.* Perhaps some Democrats truly didn't understand its horrific consequences for gay people; perhaps some did but are now trying to back away from their mistake following nationwide political fallout. Neither explanation is particularly comforting: Either legislators were shockingly negligent in the performance of their basic duty—reading the bills they vote on—or they were cruel enough to vote for a terrible bill and now too cowardly to stand by it.

So much for "not much more to say about it".

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

Just wait till aleksey calls Formaldehyde a heterophobe.

 

[BvBPL]

So much for "not much more to say about it".

Your forgot about Oklahoma, son.

 

[warpus]

I have always said that religion and sexuality should never mix. None of this makes any sense.

 

[BvBPL]

Well, I can see you never went to a dance at a Catholic girl's high school, Warpus.

 

[Goodfella]

It's more than just Mississippi and Oklahoma:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_SB_1062#Similar_legislation_in_other_states

I was under the impression that Mississippi's house took out anything about denying service to gays before they passed MI's version. It's a good sign that most have been rejected, but a bad sign that republicans are making a move for this in the first place.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Why do such bills even pop up in the first place?

 

[timtofly]

As in the days of Noah...

 

[Cutlass]

Why do such bills even pop up in the first place?

Because politics is very polarized, and in some places crazies get elected.

 

[timtofly]

Democracy is not the will of the people?

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Majority rule is typically balanced out by minority rights in a democracy that serves the good of all.

 

[Goodfella]

Majority rule is typically balanced out by minority rights in a democracy that serves the good of all.

Not if republicans can help it.

 

[Cutlass]

Democracy is not the will of the people?

Up to a point it is. But it is corruptible. The party insiders control who the candidates in the general election are going to be. So less than 5% of total voters determine who the final candidates are, and that is also subject to who has the big money behind them. So when the general election rolls around a voting district which leans one way significantly will often get a candidate that leans that way to an exceptional extent.

So a mildly bigoted electorate can get an extremely bigoted elected official very easily.