Quantcast

Comments about ‘Controversial and heavily debated Arizona bill was all about gays, or was it?’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, Feb. 28 2014 1:40 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Kalindra
Salt Lake City, Utah

While it is true that the bill did not mention LGBT individuals or couples or discrimination, the debate surrounding the bill did. Including debate by the legislators supporting the bill.

Kate Hutch
Kenmore, WA

The bill's intent was clarified by identifying those who supported it and what they said publicly.

LovelyDeseret
Gilbert, AZ

This is a case where big business trampled over the freedom of religion. Big business bullied devoutly religious people.
No one should be forced to do something that is against their basic religious beliefs. That is not freedom, that is the opposite.

Chris B
Salt Lake City, UT

I liked the proposal by one person I heard on this matter. If a cake baker for example is asked by a homosexual couple to bake a cake for their "wedding" and if the cake baker didn't want to, the baker should tell they their beliefs in no uncertain terms. Let the "couple" know what you think of homosexuality and that you support what God has said on the matter.

Tell them you will bake them a cake but the proceeds will be given to a number of groups that support traditional marriage only.

Then, obey the law and bake their cake. Give them their cake and thank them for supporting the defense of families.

Problem solved!

Upson Downs
Sandy, UT

Gay people continually whine and shout that their rights are being ignored. They cry and say they just want to be understood. Yet when it comes to the rights of a religious person, running a business, the gays say the business owner's rights don't matter. Why don't gay people just go to businesses that want their patronage and seek it. Leave the religious person's business alone and be tolerant and accepting of his/her rights. Basically the same thing you want. Take your business elsewhere..

DanO
Mission Viejo, CA

"But the lack of any reference to gays in the bill apparently didn't stop critics."
It didn't stop the proponents either.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

If the bill wasn't written as an effort to enable religious based discrimination against gays, why was it written at all? It's pretty sad and cheap for people to try to run away from the original intent of this bill now that it's been called out.

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

There are around a dozen other states all attempting this sort of thing though many have since been dropped. The primary motive, heavily mentioned even by people who support it, is to prevent lawsuits from gay people against photographers/florists/etc.

El Chango Supremo
Rexburg, ID

Chris B,

I love reading your comments... except when it comes to BYU articles!

You are always concise and to the point. Best Wishes...

Go BYU :)

Owen
Heber City, UT

This headline encapsulates the whole debate.
"To tell the truth is not merely to state the facts, but to leave a true impression." -- R.L. Stevenson. Was the Arizona bill about gays? Yes. Is the current debate "about the children?' No. Is it about states' rights? No. Is it so hard just to tell the truth? Most people just aren't comfortable with the fact that other people are attracted to the same gender.

Concerned
Huntington Beach, CA

It seems to me that Gays have decided to make put themselves in the position of being the victims all the time. Being gay is a lifestyle and a moral issue. Why should a person that doesn't wish to serve somebody be forced to. Every time there is a bill that sets up protection to religious values the courts and states cuts them down. This country will pay for the evil that is being called good. I guess Arizona needs to get a new governor.

venitar
Provo, UT

And yet it is ok for minority groups to boycott any business because of religious or other beliefs. Ironic, don't you think?
Leave the market place alone. No one is obliged to shop at any store, and any store should be allowed to limit its goods and/or services.

Two For Flinching
Salt Lake City, UT

@ Upson Downs

Owning a business is not a right, it's a privilege.

@ Lovely Desert

None of your religious beliefs have been trampled on. Please show me any religious teaching that says people who are different should be discriminated against......

Wilf 55
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

Let's not be hyprocritical. Everybody knows what was behind the bill. Even the caption next to the picture of this very article says:

"SB1062, a bill designed to give added protection from lawsuits to people who assert their religious beliefs in refusing service to gays"

So it is about refusing service to people who are different. And that is unacceptable discrimination.

Janet
Ontario, OR

Refusing or perform professional services for anyone is, by definition, discrimination. Discrimination is the result of judgment. Jesus said, "Judge not, that ye be not judged."
Refusing service is saying, "I do not deem you worthy of my service." I once took my white son and his African-American girlfriend to dinner in a small Texas city. The waitress was unfriendly, slammed down our plates, and treated us with as little respect as she could get away with. Had the restaurant refused to serve us, what could we have felt but animosity? How would that have helped anything? Whether the Arizona bill was intended to protect business people who judge gay people, or whether its intent was broader, it was a bill to protect bigotry, and bigotry is not generally compatible with Christian values.

a_voice_of_reason
Woods Cross, UT

I still don't think the bill should even have to be considered. Since when does operating a private business in America mean you are compelled to provide services to individuals? Just as an example, would anyone shout "discrimination" to a baker who refused to bake a cake for a Klu Klux Klan meeting? While their behavior and organization is reprehensible, don't they have a right to assemble and a right to free speech? If so, then doesn't any "right to receive services" apply to them just as much as to gays & lesbians? This is far beyond a gay rights issue or even a religious liberty issue. A private business or individual should have no requirements to provide services to anybody! It makes no sense at all! You have to provide me a service or good and you have to take my money...the founding fathers are rolling over in their graves.

rightascension
Provo, UT

If there are businesses in Arizona that refuse service to couples who heterosexual activity the business owners find unacceptable -- that would make for an interesting article.

John Kateel
Salt Lake City, UT

If this bill were to pass in Arizona, a Muslim could reject the business of a Mormon because to deny that Mohammed is the true prophet and to say that latter day prophets walk the Earth is blasphemy. A Unitarian in clear conscience could not serve a gun owner. A Catholic Walgreen's employee should be able to refuse to sell birth control and not be fired. A Jewish waitress at Red Lobster should kindly decline to place any order that contains shellfish. A Brahmin Hindu shopkeeper should be able to prevent a low caste dark skinned Hindu from be-fowling their purity by having their shadow fall upon their person. The list goes on. It is not about gays.

Blue
Salt Lake City, UT

Everything about SB 1062, the national events that precipitated its writing, the candid statements made by its proponents while it was under discussion and the legal analysis of the likely consequences of its enactment, all made it abundantly clear that the purpose of the bill was to permit individuals, business and governments to discriminate against people on the basis of sexual orientation and hide their bigotry behind a mask of "religious freedom."

This news article is a transparent and sadly desperate attempt to deny that reality.

AZEIR
Phoenix, AZ

The underlying premise of this bill and the reporter's argument is religion is under attack in Arizona and elsewhere. It isn't. That being said, the motivations for the Arizona bill were events that happened in other states with other laws that created protected classes (like gays) that cannot happen in Arizona. The legislature was solving a problem it didn't have.

What not only the business community --around the country-- and others did was point out that needless, divisive poorly thought out laws (like AZ's earlier bill SB1070) that permit even the slightest possibility of discrimination or injustice against citizens is bad for business. Love, which some believe is the hallmark of religion, may make the world go around, but money greases the wheel.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments