Vunderkind
Social Member
We in Nigeria are closer to the intense level of homophobia currently radiating from every corner of the country. No one, apparently, wants to empathize with gay people, as Jonathan’s ‘most favorable’ law criminalizes same-sex marriages and relationships. By now, we already know the jackpot being played: homosexuality is against the religious beliefs of Nigerians, and if you want to be gay, friend, you have to like prison food.
Of course, America has greeted this with heroic outrage, but Nigeria is a comet plotting its own course in these matters. However, it would appear that Arizona seems to be borrowing a leaf from the anti-gay section of the human race.
Sarah Posner wrote today about Senator Steve Yarbrough, who is the sponsor of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (SB 1062) for Arizona. Even though one cannot be sure that Yarbrough would openly admit to being anti-gay, his legislation is a quite interesting one. This bill says that religious people who run businesses should have constitutional protection for when they want to turn away gay people who may patronize their merchandise.
To quote:
First, the bill clarifies that the definition of “person” includes all types of businesses and legal entities. Although the question of whether private business owners should be afforded First Amendment protection should be a non-issue, opponents of religious freedom continue to argue that for-profit businesses do not have consciences. They argue that businesses cannot operate according to a sincerely held religious belief and make a conscientious objection to a government mandate. Further, the updated definition is similar to what already exists in Arizona law defining a person as including corporations and other business entities.
Are you quite confused yet? It may be worthwhile to trace the origins of the Arizona Senator’s motive. He cites the case in New Mexico, where Elane Photography, owned by the Huguenins was sued by a lesbian couple because Elane Photography refused to photograph their commitment ceremony. The lesbian couple was able to sue under the Human Rights Act of the state, which prohibits discrimination by businesses on the grounds of sexual orientation (among other things).
The Mexico Supreme Court found Elane Photography guilty of violating the Human Rights Act, stating that when Elane Photography turned down the lesbian couple, they might as well have turned down a couple of different race. Since then, Elane Photography has filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the US Supreme Court, arguing that the owners’ First Amendment rights were infringed.
At the time this suit was filed, same-sex marriage wasn’t even legal in New Mexico. What, then, was Elane Photography’s gripe? Apparently, the owners were pretty (religiously) miffed that the lesbians had the effrontery to want their commitment ceremony photographed like a wedding or something. They were also (apparently) offended that the New Mexico state civil rights law allowed the lesbians the right to seek that service from any photography business without fear of discrimination.
Even though Elane Photography and Yarbrough may have the same idea, Associated Press says Yarbrough at least "downplayed concerns that businesses like hotels, for instance, could refuse to rent rooms to gays or unmarried women under the measure."As he says, the bill only protects the religious freedom of business owners. However, he did say (to another reporter) that his legislation “could also be interpreted to allow motels with vacant rooms to refuse to rent to gays."
Remember when people observed that sodomy had been banned in Nigeria a long time ago and that this same-sex marriage bill was just uncalled for? LGBT (Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transsexuals) in Arizona don’t even have the legal right to “engage in the commercial marketplace free from discrimination.” As Sarah Posner writes: “if they were turned away from a hotel, for example, they lack the same recourse as they would have in New Mexico.”
So, then, why is the bill even an issue at all? De ja vu, anyone?
News credits: http://www.religiondispatches.org/d...g_up_gays__arizona_lawmaker_locking_them_out/
Of course, America has greeted this with heroic outrage, but Nigeria is a comet plotting its own course in these matters. However, it would appear that Arizona seems to be borrowing a leaf from the anti-gay section of the human race.
Sarah Posner wrote today about Senator Steve Yarbrough, who is the sponsor of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (SB 1062) for Arizona. Even though one cannot be sure that Yarbrough would openly admit to being anti-gay, his legislation is a quite interesting one. This bill says that religious people who run businesses should have constitutional protection for when they want to turn away gay people who may patronize their merchandise.
To quote:
First, the bill clarifies that the definition of “person” includes all types of businesses and legal entities. Although the question of whether private business owners should be afforded First Amendment protection should be a non-issue, opponents of religious freedom continue to argue that for-profit businesses do not have consciences. They argue that businesses cannot operate according to a sincerely held religious belief and make a conscientious objection to a government mandate. Further, the updated definition is similar to what already exists in Arizona law defining a person as including corporations and other business entities.
Are you quite confused yet? It may be worthwhile to trace the origins of the Arizona Senator’s motive. He cites the case in New Mexico, where Elane Photography, owned by the Huguenins was sued by a lesbian couple because Elane Photography refused to photograph their commitment ceremony. The lesbian couple was able to sue under the Human Rights Act of the state, which prohibits discrimination by businesses on the grounds of sexual orientation (among other things).
The Mexico Supreme Court found Elane Photography guilty of violating the Human Rights Act, stating that when Elane Photography turned down the lesbian couple, they might as well have turned down a couple of different race. Since then, Elane Photography has filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the US Supreme Court, arguing that the owners’ First Amendment rights were infringed.
At the time this suit was filed, same-sex marriage wasn’t even legal in New Mexico. What, then, was Elane Photography’s gripe? Apparently, the owners were pretty (religiously) miffed that the lesbians had the effrontery to want their commitment ceremony photographed like a wedding or something. They were also (apparently) offended that the New Mexico state civil rights law allowed the lesbians the right to seek that service from any photography business without fear of discrimination.
Even though Elane Photography and Yarbrough may have the same idea, Associated Press says Yarbrough at least "downplayed concerns that businesses like hotels, for instance, could refuse to rent rooms to gays or unmarried women under the measure."As he says, the bill only protects the religious freedom of business owners. However, he did say (to another reporter) that his legislation “could also be interpreted to allow motels with vacant rooms to refuse to rent to gays."
Remember when people observed that sodomy had been banned in Nigeria a long time ago and that this same-sex marriage bill was just uncalled for? LGBT (Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transsexuals) in Arizona don’t even have the legal right to “engage in the commercial marketplace free from discrimination.” As Sarah Posner writes: “if they were turned away from a hotel, for example, they lack the same recourse as they would have in New Mexico.”
So, then, why is the bill even an issue at all? De ja vu, anyone?
News credits: http://www.religiondispatches.org/d...g_up_gays__arizona_lawmaker_locking_them_out/
Last edited by a moderator:
