stats for wordpress

Are you on Facebook?

Would you please click "like" in the box to your right, or

Visit us on Facebook!

This One Picture Perfectly Explains The Hypocrisy Of Arizona’s Anti-Gay Bill

by David Badash on February 21, 2014

in Bigotry Watch,Civil Rights,Discrimination,News,Politics,Religion

Post image for This One Picture Perfectly Explains The Hypocrisy Of Arizona’s Anti-Gay Bill

If there’s any doubt that a picture is worth a thousand words, this one photo should put any concerns to rest. Posted to Twitter an hour ago by Turn Arizona Blue, the photo shows a protest sign at today’s rally in Phoenix against SB 1062, the bill that — if Governor Brewer signs it — will allow anyone to discriminate against anyone else if not doing so violates their religious beliefs.

The sign reads:

“So serving gays is against your religion? I expect you also plan to refuse service to:

  • Divorced people
  • People who eat shellfish
  • People who eat meat on Fridays
  • People who work on Sundays
  • People who shave/cut their hair
  • People who wear two different materials
  • People who plant more than one type of seed
  • Non-virgins
  • Etc.

Touché, sign writer, touché!

Cherry-picking the parts of the Bible you like/don’t like is hypocritical. If your “sincerely held religious beliefs” are so devout that they force you to discriminate against gay people, they you must discriminate against all the above, and many others, I suspect.

Fair is fair.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...


We invite you to sign up for our new mailing list, and subscribe to The New Civil Rights Movement via email or RSS.

Also, please like us on Facebook, and follow us on Twitter!


Davie013 February 22, 2014 at 12:52 pm

I've read several stories about this, and one think I do not recall reading is that this doesn't just legalise religious discrimination, it legalizes it all. don't like something about someone, discriminate then claim its against your religion to, say, serve customers with a tattoo you don't particularly like, or men who wear jewelry, or red headed people, whatever. nowhere in what I read would you even have to prove it violates your personal religious beliefs, you just need to say it does so you can kick out the mom with the crying baby, just pick something about her and say against my beliefs.

labman57 February 22, 2014 at 9:33 pm

I always have to heave a sigh and roll my eyes whenever self-proclaimed Christians indignantly declare that homosexuality and gay marriage defies "the word of God". This argument is both cowardly and disingenuous — using biased interpretations of cherry-picked biblical passages to justify their brand of social intolerance and religious self-righteousness.

wssp May 29, 2014 at 3:17 am

Sorry, there's a difference between Bible law and Bible morality. Jesus abolished almost all rules of the old Covenant, but never changed His mind about gay relations.

James_M_Martin February 22, 2014 at 7:49 pm

"Virgins" is misspelled "Virgens."

labman57 February 22, 2014 at 9:30 pm

Bigotry and discrimination is abhorrent.
Attempting to rationalize said bigotry as "religious freedom" is cowardly.

Government-sanctioned bigotry and discrimination is simply unconscionable, and any state law permitting such inhumane conduct in the name of "free enterprise" and "religious rights" is a direct violation of the federal Civil Rights Acts.

LOrion February 23, 2014 at 1:06 pm

Good one sharing… and of course this means Atheists could refuse all CHRISTIANS!

wssp May 29, 2014 at 3:18 am

Why not, they already try to shut us up.

FrodoLives February 23, 2014 at 4:26 pm

That poster is wrong in so many ways. First, it mentions laws given by God to the ancient Israelites. We're not bound by those laws. We live under a new covenant with Jesus Christ. Second, (I'm assuming the poster is referring to the refusal of bakeries to make wedding cakes for homosexuals), it's not about 'serving gays." It's about participating in a message I disagree with. if a homosexual came to my restaurant, I would serve him a meal. If a divorced person came to my restaurant, I would serve him a meal. If a homosexual demanded I use my talents to help him celebrate his sin (cake for a homosexual union), I would refuse. If a divorced person demanded I use my talents to help him celebrate his sin (divorce), I would refuse.

cervixsays February 23, 2014 at 10:33 pm

Bring on the "sin" celebrations! We don't need your bigoted cakes, anyway.

FrodoLives February 23, 2014 at 11:56 pm

If you don't need my bigoted cakes, then you shouldn't have a problem with me not being forced by the government to provide them to you. Would you be okay with me being able to sue you and sic government prosecutors on you for not providing services for my, say, right wing tea party celebration of the second amendment?

SamsMomIsPretty February 24, 2014 at 1:08 am

Probably the stupidest thing you've ever said here. Dear God, you are full of false equivocacy, exposed lies you use s 'truth', and to top it off, the smugness of what an idiot thinks an intelligent person talks like.

FrodoLives February 24, 2014 at 11:10 am

Do you have a response to my argument? Seems not. Howard Kurtz was just talking about you!

wssp May 29, 2014 at 3:19 am

Too bad the people demanding that baker comply didn't feel the same way and decided to be fascist about it.

Ned_Flaherty February 24, 2014 at 3:49 am

There is one large, false assumption in this article: that discriminators must hold a set of religious beliefs, and that they must hold them consistently.

That's untrue.

The law does not require discriminators to hold multiple religious beliefs. In fact, a discriminator is allowed to hold as few as just one single belief — say, that all LGBT people should be denied service — and as soon as the discriminator claims that belief is "sincere" (an unprovable concept) then the discriminator is deemed, by law, to be completely innocent.

wssp May 29, 2014 at 3:18 am

Amen Frodo!

Comments on this entry are closed.

{ 2 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: