Mississippi: Bravely going where Arizona has gone before (and then madly backpedaled from)

[taste_is_sweet]

Those of you living in civilized countries outside the United States may not know that recently Arizona (state of that smug bastard Roadrunner and that city where everyone makes a wrong turn; not to mention the state where it is now legal for a cop to ask anyone for their immigration papers at anytime, anywhere, if there is "reasonable suspicion" that the person is insufficiently light-skinned an illegal alien) voted in a bill that would have allowed businesses to refuse to serve people based on sexual orientation on religious grounds.

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer vetoed the bill (same link just above) after even the Republicans who had voted for it realized that pissing off Apple and the Superbowl committee might be a bad idea. Joh Stewart of the Daily Show has hilarious commentary on it below. (Unfortunately it's in two parts.):

But Mississippi, a state I know so little about that I had to look up its capitol (It's Jackson), decided to take up the banner of discrimination and vote in its own law about the very same thing.

The state flag of Mississippi, which perhaps tells us everything we need to know*

But it's Religious freedom, y'all. It's not about not serving homosexuals. It's about... allowing people to not serve homosexuals. In the name of freedom.

(I hope that my American FListies will sign this petition against it. It's endorsed by Lance Bass! Who should possibly move.)

But the thing I really don't get about Mississippi's bill is this: How do you tell if someone is homosexual before you serve them? I mean, same-sex marriage is illegal in Mississippi; it's not like any give bakery in Jackson is going to have a homosexual couple ordering a wedding cake. And sure, maybe if someone wants two bridal dresses for a commitment ceremony it might tip off the owner of the local Dress Barn. But what about restaurants? Or shoe stores? Or, I dunno, pet salons? Are you really going to ask someone if they're gay before you shave their dog? Even if they come prancing in dressed like Johnny Weir at an Oscar after-party, can you be sure that they threaten the God-given sanctity of your divorce just by existing? Unless a Canadian walks into your ski shop, how can you even know?

Obviously, the next step is for Mississippi to pass a law like Arizona's, that will let anyone ask for one's sexual orientation at any given time. And then they'd need to issue gay IDs. And then have special homosexual ghettos to make sure that no businesses are threatened by gays or lesbians trying to pass as normal people.

And then jail them for acting homosexual in public. Like Russia, to protect the children. Maybe those Reds have the right idea after all!



*To be fair, Georgia only got rid of the Confederate Battle Flag on their state flag in 2003.

Comments

[sgamadison.livejournal.com]

Apparently the GOP in Arizona are trying again, this time putting forward a bill that would allow JUDGES to discriminate against same-sex couples. *rolls eyes and grits teeth*

[taste-is-sweet.livejournal.com]

Awesome. Just awesome. A RL friend of mine also told me that Mississippi is only one of seven states trying to pass this very same law. Fuck.

[brumeier.livejournal.com]

I find this very disheartening. Just when you think your country is finally making strides with gay rights, Arizona and Mississippi happen.

Do businesses hate homosexual money? Because that seems pretty foolish. In this economy you're going to turn people away? Can two same-sex friends not go out for lunch without an opposite sex chaperone?

I probably seemed biased, since my mother is gay, but I honestly never saw the point of this kind of discrimination. The sanctity of marriage argument is so laughable, I don't even know how that keeps getting made. If gays want to suffer the same marriage woes as straights, why are we stopping them? Have any of these people looked at divorce rates? Not a whole lot of actual sanctity these days.

Jeez. Don't even get me started. Do you think I would make a good Canadian? ::grins::

[taste-is-sweet.livejournal.com]

I don't think you can be biased when you're on the side of human rights. :) Not to mention that there's nothing wrong with something particularly hitting home because it describes your family...

Good question about hating homosexual money. I guess the businesses that want this law are so flush that they can afford to turn away a source of income for being morally offended by other peoples' existence. May they all enjoy their legal right to discriminate right into bankruptcy. :)

You'd make a great Canadian! I just wish they all thought the way you do.

[reedfem.livejournal.com]

What's it called when you keep doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result?

Oh yeah...

[taste-is-sweet.livejournal.com]

Heh. "Stupidity" is the other answer... ;)

[claudia603.livejournal.com]

I just don't get the need for this kind of ignorance...

But, as you say, you can't just allow discrimination against one group without accepting that then any group could be the next victim. I, for one, will never forget the period of time right after 9/11, having a Middle Eastern last name that had the same starting letters as some of the people named as the terrorists...what fun! I remember a period of time just afterwards being worried if someone knocked on the door. Not to mention any time going through security at the airport...

So the point being that no matter what anyone feels about religion and gays, that should be kept private and should never seep into actual law. That is a darned slippery slope that any Jewish person, gypsy, gay, etc. living in parts of Europe during WW2 remembers all too clearly...

[taste-is-sweet.livejournal.com]

Oh, yes. Totally. If you can start with one group, where do you stop? Doesn't seem very 'American' to me.

I'm sorry you had to deal with that kind of racism after 9/11! I hope you weren't physically hurt. Bad enough to be looked at as if you're a terrorist, for sure.

[blythechild.livejournal.com]

I don't understand this at all. Business owners already have the right to refuse service and (as far as I know) they don't have to give a really stupid fucking reason for it either. Setting up an exclusionary law for this behaviour practically ensures that they'll be held up to the world for their ignorance and prejudice. Never mind the fact that they are fighting a losing battle against progress: you cannot exclude a segment of the population and call yourselves "free". I fail to see how a person's inalienable rights can be open to adjustment in this way.

Besides, gay people buy things. A lot of things. You're in business to make money, not flaunt your personal opinions. Some 'adult' people need to grow the hell up...

[taste-is-sweet.livejournal.com]

I agree completely!

A (very) few businesses here in the U.S. have been successfully sued for not serving gay customers, so apparently you need to at least give a plausible reason that isn't transparently prejudicial. To which I say, boo-fucking-hoo. If you make wedding cakes, then be prepared for even (gasp!) same-sex couples to want to buy one.