AZ Legislature turns back clock, resumes segregation, but this time for gays

[DC Al Fine]

I, for the record, read the whole bill a few days before Brewer vetoed it, and I'm not a legal expert by any means, but it's clear to me that the language is too vague, at least, from a layman's point of view.  That, and the fact that we haven't heard of a real situation in Arizona that would warrant such a law, is why I was opposed to its passage.  It's not because I don't value religious liberty.  That's just ridiculous.

Fair point, but I could rattle off a couple Canadian examples. Given that other places further along the progressive road have had these issues, it makes sense for socons to play defense while they still can... even if there hasn't been a problem in AZ yet.

[DC Al Fine]

Being tolerant of other types of people is not equivalent to being tolerant of other people's intolerance.  Homophobia is wrong and is a set of beliefs, not a group of people who immigrated to this country for Homophobiavania. 

This. Tolerance doesn't mean pretending that horrible people aren't horrible.

And to the homophobes, homos are horrible people.  That's why you need a much better reason than "it's horrible" if you're going to justify government action that forces people to do things they would rather not do.

That sort of makes sense in the abstract.  In reality, we recognize certain judgements are illegitimate.  If a large employer wants to fire someone because they're female or Muslim or black, we force them to do something they don't want to do.  We do take a side against unfair discrimination in those contexts.  If we're going to have a civilized society, you can't allow systematic discrimination in terms of basic necessities like housing and employment.

I'm still waiting for a clear actual or hypothetical example of this religious discrimination against homophobes.  If you can't even come up with a plausible hypothetical of what you're worried about, I don't think it's a big deal.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/education/pressure-mounts-on-law-societies-to-reject-faith-based-schools-graduates/article16623462/

[DC Al Fine]

And, just on this subject of gay people never being discriminated against, look at this article.  That details hatred motivated attacks on gay people in a small area of New York City in just a few months.  These things actually happen as most gay people can attest to. 

I never said that gay people are never discriminated against.  And it shouldn't take LGBT specific laws to deal with physical assault.  Those attacks are felonies to be tackled and dealt with no matter their motivation.  Is it really less of a concern if someone gets assaulted for some other reason?

I've been assaulted for being gay and I've had people assault me in a mugging.  Believe me, it feels a lot different.  Just like it feels a lot different being fired for being gay and being fired for good cause.

I'm not sure why different feelings about requires different laws. Why can't they give the perpetrator 5 yrs for assault in both cases?

[DC Al Fine]

To add to what Ernest said, activism and legislating are different activities. If you're trying to make a major change to society, you want at least a significant minority of public support before you make it law. To do otherwise is to risk a backlash and setting the cause back 10 years. This doesn't preclude activism of course, but it does change the approach.