Hopefully, Arizona Gov. Brewer will come (or will have come) to her senses and veto SB1062, which would allow businesses to not serve people on religious grounds, which translated into English means no gay people served–even rightwing Fox News refers to it as “Jim Crow laws for homosexuals.”
For the record, this is the blog’s official stance (
a wide one) on these sorts of laws–which Republicans are trying to pass hither and yon:
ARIZONAN LEGAL QUESTION–IF YOU DISCRIMINATE AGAINST SOMEONE CUZ YOU THINK HE'S GAY & HE'S *NOT GAY*, IS THAT ILLEGAL? #OfficerMyGaydarBroke
— MiketheMadBiologist (@mikethemadbiol) February 25, 2014
Leaving aside the total dickheadness of these bills (as the kids used to say, mean people suck), I have no idea how a restaurant owner is supposed to know if someone were gay. Lisping? An ‘unmasculine’ walk? Consider this Republican congressman (on the right), who has never publicly stated he’s gay:
Do you deny him service?
I kid. Wear all the teal belts you want fellas (seriously). Of course, these odious bills have nothing to with legislation–it’s how Palinists roll (boldface added):
Palin is conceptually and intellectually poor because her politics are not about policies, but a romantic restoration of the ‘real’ America to its rightful place. The primary purpose of politics is not to govern, not to provide services, and not to solve mundane, although often important, problems. For the Palinist, politics first and foremost exists to enable the social restoration of ‘real’ Americans (think about the phrase “red blooded American”) and the emotional and social advantages that restoration would provide to its followers (obviously, if you’re not a ‘real’ American, you might view this as a bad thing…). Practicalities of governance, such as compromise and worrying about reality-based outcomes, actually get in the way. Why risk having your fantasy muddied by reality?
In this way, symbols and short phrases are the goal, not a means (although others, such as corporations and lobbyists, are willing to co-opt the emotions these symbols generate to further their own agendas).
I would say they’ve gone too far this time, but that would ignore all of the other times they went too far. The only way this changes–and here’s where I differ with many–is if the Democrats change their overall stance. Right now, hugging the (teal) belt of the Republicans and staying just a smidgen to the left of the unholy melange of recidivist segregationists, batshitloonitarians, and theocrats means that Republicans have no political space to operate. If the Democrats moved left, Republicans might be able to stake out more moderate positions. When Democrats incorporate Rockefeller Republicans into the party, the only voters left are the John Birchers.
Sometimes you need to push the Overton Window, not pull it.