This New York Times article addresses the bill that was passed in the Arizona Legislation last Thursday. The bill, which passed the Arizona Legislature 33 to 27, “allows business owners asserting their religious (read: Christian) beliefs to refuse service to gays and others…” based solely on the person’s beliefs. I have several questions I wish to pose to all those who are reading this. As I read the wording of this bill, it seems to imply that the authors of this bill are those of the Christian faith, and it is said Christians who are giving those who are also of the Christian faith (only) the right to refuse to serve “Gays and others” whom they deem as being, or going, or living against the religious beliefs of Christians who are providing a service to the general public. My first question…
“If the person or business that is providing a service to the general public has never publically objected to providing a service to members of the general public regardless of whether or not these members of the public are “Gay or others” prior to the signing of this bill, where then will the actual proof come from, that supports their claim that they have never provided service to members of the general public who happen to be “Gay or others” and therefore should not be compelled to provide said service now that the bill has passed?”
It seems to me that if a company is to be able to claim that their religious beliefs preclude them from serving members of the general public who happen to be “Gay or others” on religious grounds, then that proof ought to already exist amongst members of the general public. Said company ought to be required or compelled to provide proof that they have said history of denying service to those members of the general public who are “Gay or others,” and can prove that they can verifying that this company has a long history of denying service to said members of the general public who are “Gay or others.” If the either the company can prove someway, or if members of the general public come forth to validate the companies claim, then their right to deny service can stand; however, if the company cannot prove it has a history of discriminating against the members of the general public based on religious grounds said company should face some sort of sanction for misleading the public, and inciting ill-will.
My next question is, “Will those who wrote and support this bill give equal deference to those of other religions and faiths, and varying spiritual walks, who subsequently wish to refuse service to Christians on the grounds that such service goes against their religious faith or beliefs? Will Christians who are supporting of this bill be so supporting when and if they are on the receiving end of said bill? The old saying that goes something like, “When they came for those over there, I said nothing. When they came for those over there I did nothing… and, when they came for me… there was no one left to say anything.” This isn’t quite right, but I hope you catch my drift. Stand up for the rights of others because you never know when the time may come when you will need others to stand up for you! Back to the bill that was signed… “Has anyone (besides myself), actually asked themselves the following question… “Who actually is the “other” spoken of in this bill?