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

[DonViejo]

Legalizing discrimination is horrible enough. But a sneaky pro-corporate provision in the bill will also shock you

EMMETT RENSIN

-snip-

But there’s a second danger lurking in SB 1062. While less shiny an object than legally sanctioned bigotry, it is also treacherous and deserving of serious scrutiny.

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”.

-snip-

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

[blkmusclmachine]

1. ,

,

[sakabatou]

2. Jim Crow

[former9thward]

3. This is misleading.

The bill did not grant a "right to refuse service" to anyone. They already have that under existing law. AZ and most states allow a business to refuse service to gays. Sexual orientation is not what is known as a "protected class." The bill established a defense to lawsuits if service was refused. It is a useless bill because no one can sue anyway. The lawsuits which have happened were in states that did have a law not allowing discrimination.

The only way to solve this is to make sexual orientation a protected class in federal Civil Rights legislation.

[AlinPA]

4. RE:" a "right to refuse service" to anyone. They already have that under existing law"...

So in AZ, businesses can refuse service to people based on race? Or real estate companies can deny a person a place of residence based on being gay, non-white or non-Christian?

[former9thward]

5. Please read carefully.

In fact, in most of Arizona, and most states in the U.S., businesses don’t need a license to discriminate against gays: It’s already legal.

Lacking legal protections

There are no state laws banning a business owner from firing an employee from a job for being gay, nor stating that a business owner cannot deny service to a person based on sexual orientation.
There is no federal law that consistently protects LGBT individuals from employment discrimination, and most states lack laws that explicitly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. Unlike race, color, religion, national origin, age, sex, and other such classes, sexual orientation is not covered in the federal anti-discrimination law.

Read more: http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2014/02/25/reality-vs-rhetoric-in-the-az-sb1062-debate-religious-freedom-lgbt/#ixzz2uTCVGwgq

Exactly what I said. Not what you said.

[AlinPA]

6. Understand, but your first two sentences in the post I referred to indicate that AZ could deny

service to anyone, not just gay people but all the other classes mentioned in the federal anti-discrimination law.

[former9thward]

7. Those two sentences were further defined by sentences three and four.

But no matter, sexual orientation should be made a protected class at the federal level. I think we can agree on that.

[AlinPA]

8. Absolutely.