Arizona bill’s other outrage: Why anti-gay bigotry is just the beginning

[OregonBlue]

From the Arizona State Legislature’s fact sheet on the bill, explaining a key provision:

“[This law would]…expand the definition of person to include any individual, association, partnership, corporation, church, estate, trust, foundation, or other legal entity.”

That means that the right to refuse service to potential clients on religious grounds wouldn’t be newly granted to ostensibly secular businesses on non-profits, but rather that such entities are “protected” under the old First Amendment because they – like individuals – are “people”.

Had they wanted, lawmakers could have gone the other route to enshrine the corporate right to bigotry. They could have created a new legal shield for businesses, explicitly granting them an expanded interpretation of the “right to refuse service to anyone”.

But that’s not what they did. Rather, they used the framework of First Amendment religious freedom to justify the right to refuse service, and specifically referred to “people” as the beneficiaries of this new “protection”. They chose that course because in doing so, it allows this bill to achieve a second, more insidious goal under cover of the headline-grabbing license to discriminate.

http://www.salon.com/2014/02/25/arizona_bills_other_outrage_why_anti_gay_bigotry_is_just_the_beginning/

So it's citizen's united on steroids.

[theHandpuppet]

1. Very interesting article

I'd highly recommend folks read this article in its entirety.