The so-called “Religious Freedom Bill” would have allowed proprietors of establishments open to the public to refuse to serve customers if doing so would violate the “sincerely held” religious beliefs of the owner.
On the surface, the proposed law seemed like a neutral way to protect the First Amendment rights of business owners.Hmmm.
But beneath that surface lurked a dangerous and divisive effect, granting hotels, bars and restaurants the right to refuse to serve LGBT persons and couples such as Brad and me, simply because our love did not comport with the religious views of the owners.
But thanks to pressures upon the governor’s office in days before she was set to sign the law, and in the face of a boycott of the state by tourists and the NFL, which threatened to move the Super Bowl to Pasadena, Gov. Jan Brewer ultimately decided to veto the law. Tolerance and equality won out that day.
So, "tolerance" for LGBTQ means intolerance—enacted with force—towards people who would like to choose who they do business with?
Whilst I don't support a religious position, this definition of "tolerance" does rather illustrate how our language has become utterly perverted.
To be honest, my attitude is pretty much espoused by Tim Cook, i.e. that serving everyone equally is good business.
Or, as I put it after the heated feminism debate at this weekend's Liberty League Freedom Forum...
I am an individualist. I discriminate on whether or not you are a cunt, not whether or not you have one.That pretty sums up my attitude to all identity politics, frankly.