The Arizona problem is a Congressional problem, not Regional

[cthulu2016]

Last edited Wed Feb 26, 2014, 08:16 PM - Edit history (4)

The Arizona story has highlighted something I find odd... a lot of people assume that in the USA it is somehow against the law to discriminate against gay people, and that Arizona would be undoing that.

Actually, if such discrimination was against federal law Arizona could not undo it. Federal law trumps state law. If Arizona passed a law today legalizing racial segregation in housing, for instance, it would be trumped by existing federal law and would never have effect.

There is in the eyes of the government of the United States of America, a categorical difference between, "No blacks," or , "no jews," and, "No gays." Unlike race, religion, ethnicity, age, gender, disabilty, etc., orientation is not a federally protected civil rights category. (Some states state laws or constitutions ban discrimination based on sexual orientation and others do not.)

If Woolworth's was still around and wanted to hang a "No Gays" sign at their lunch counter I don't know that there is any federal law to prevent it.

And that is a status (or lack thereof) established by federal legislation... Congress.

This is a national problem, not only a regional problem involving a few bad apples. Only Congress can guarantee the rights of people in "bad apple" states. (Hence the 1960s civil rights acts.)

But in all this TV coverage of the Arizona story it seldom, if ever, gets mentioned that whatever we are saying about the Arizona legislature applies to our Congress.

"Do you think it is acceptable for a restaurant to be able to refuse to serve gay customers?"

That is no less appropriate a question for Congress as for Arizona.

And however crazy it would be for Brewer to sign the law, it is equally crazy for every RWer in congress to not prevent the law. They are all responsible for the law.

But ask yourself, when was the last time, if ever, you heard a Republican congressperson asked that as a policy question about a policy within his governmental body's control?

[Loudly]

1. Republicans need to replay the whole "Religious Liberty" travesty again.

A tiny amendment to the Civil Rights Act would shut that bullshit down once and for all.

Any Democratic legislator care to sponsor such an amendment?

Keep introducing it until it passes, which it certainly must eventually do.

[William769]

2. This is what I keep saying but unless someone is actually affected they truly can't comprehend this

being that we live in the land of the "free".

I would go on but I'm tired of beating this dead horse.

[cthulu2016]

3. You can see from minimal response to this OP that folks just won't get

that it is ultimately a problem with congress.

[sibelian]

4. Could you maybe edit the title, Cthulu?

I think the post makes a very important point and the title, please forgive, seems a little vague to me.

[cthulu2016]

6. That's a fair point. Done.

[former9thward]

5. You are absolutely right.

Unless sexual orientation is made a protected class in federal civil rights legislation, all of this is so much breast beating.