Religious Dilemna

In the event you missed this week, Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed the controversial bill passed by the Arizona legislature that would have given businesses, and citizens, of Arizona the ability to run their businesses based on their religious beliefs. The bill was dubbed the "Anti-Gay" Bill by Progressives and backed up by "Moderate" Republicans as an affront to Civil Liberties of same-sex couples in Arizona. What I am curious is if anyone read the bill as I doubt those with the largest megaphones did.

Here is the Bill: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062p.pdf

While the originals of the bill stem from recent business owners being sued over not photographing same-sex marriages, baking cakes for same-sex weddings and providing flowers for same-sex ceremonies. I am a small business owner. As a small business owner I wouldn't turn away anyone as long as the payment method for the services I render is done with legally obtain dollars.

Then again its my business and my choice as an owner to make that decision. If another business owner wants to alienate a segment of the population because of a moral, religious or any objection then so be it. If their business fails, its on that business owner. The florist that was sued in Washington over not providing flowers for a same-sex marriage because she didn't feel Jesus would approve then so be it. AGAIN it is her business.

SB 1062 in Arizona wasn't giving religious freedom to just Catholics, Lutherans, Methodist, or any other Christian sect. It was giving religious freedom to ALL religions. 86 large companies, along with the NFL, placed pressure on Gov. Brewer to veto the bill - ironic isn't that the Progressives can't stand Big Business contributing to political campaigns but have no problem when Big Business is backing their cause!

American Airlines CEO Doug Parker was reported to have written a letter to Gov. Brewer saying(http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/25/news/economy/arizona-anti-gay-bill/),"I can assure you that this proposed legislation is causing tremendous concerns for our employees, particularly those who live and work in Arizona." Really? Expanding religious freedom and protecting that religious freedom from lawsuits is creating a concern for employees? The Bill doesn't allow business or institutions from violating the religious freedom of the employee.

Progressives are there for religious freedom for the employee but don't want to give the Mom and Pop business owner the same religious freedom. By not allowing a business owner the ability to run their business aligned with their religious belief but imposes upon that business owner the religious beliefs of their employees and patrons is not equitable in a free society. We all have the Right to exercise our religion without fear of retribution by the government. The fact, as in the case on the above example from Washington, it was the Attorney General that brought suit. Combine that with the Affordable Care Act, religious freedoms of the business owner is being trampled upon.

I know I said this above but it needs repeating - Being a small business owner, I don't understand why anyone would turn away patrons/clients in so far as the money used to pay for services is obtained legally. Yet in a free society, that business owner has that choice just as everyone has the choice of not patronizing that business.

Duck Suspension: Freedom of Speech?!?!

In a recent issue of GQ magazine(http://www.gq.com/entertainment/television/201401/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson), Duck Dynasty Phil Robertson discusses an array of topics but the one that landed him a suspension dealt with his answer to the question: What, in your mind, is sinful?

Phil Robertson responded, "Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men." It is this response that gets the air time, especially on Progressive media outlets, but Mr. Robertson didn't stop there as he referenced the Bible. Specifically he paraphrased Corinthians when he quipped, "Don't be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offends, the greedy, the drunkyards, the slanderers, the swindlers - they won't inherit the kingdom of God. Don't deceive yourself. It's not right."

GLAAD spokesperson Wilson Cruz offered a response by stating, "Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil's lie about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe. He clearly knows nothing about gay people or the majority of Louisianans - and Americans - who support legal recognition for loving and committed gay and lesbian couples. Phil's decision to push vile and extreme stereotypes is a stain on A&E and his sponsors who now need to reexamine their ties to someone with such a public disdain for LGBT people and families."

Wow! Mr. Robertson is pushing "vile and extreme stereotypes" - where? In his response to the question about what is sinful - where does he push a stereotype? Perhaps its when GQ quotes Phil's thought on "modern immorality" as - "It seems like, to me, a vagina - as a man - would be more desirable than a man's anus. That's just me. I'm just thinking: There's more there! She's got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I'm saying? But hey, sin: It's not logical, my man. It's just not logical." While I don't go as far as Mr. Robertson goes to consider two men, or more, engaging in anal sex as a sin; I do understand where Mr. Robertson may come to that conclusion based on his religious beliefs. Again though I ask Wilson Cruz - where did Phil Robertson push a stereotype?

All this being said, the rub on this situation is that Phil Robertson's freedom of speech and/or religion has been violated. I am sorry to say folks there has been no government clamp down on Phil Robertson and as far as I know he is still a free man and not in jail. Question that Progressives won't answer is: What if a member of the LGBT community was suspended from a show for stating their religious view on sin?

Personally I never saw the appeal of Duck Dynasty - perhaps I am not redneck enough - nor do I watch A&E all that much to begin with. I think Brandon Ambrosino (http://ideas.time.com/2013/12/19/the-duck-dynasty-fiasco-says-more-about-our-bigotry-than-phils/) sums it up well at the end of his article when he writes: "GK Chesterton said that bigotry is "an incapacity to conceive seriously the alternative to a proposition." If he is right - and he usually is - then I wonder if the Duck Dynasty fiasco says more about our bigotry than Phil's." By "our" Brandon refers to the LGBT community as he is gay.

Progressives and Conservatives need to learn that bigotry, racism, sexism, etc...flows both ways. While Phil Robertson doesn't talk for all Christians, he does for an unknown number. Obviously Christians don't interpret the Bible all the same or we wouldn't have Catholics, Orthodox, Baptist, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Episcopal s, Methodists, Protestants, Lutherans, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, etc. The final point to digest - Earlier this year a major retailer got into a PR mess in Minnesota because some cashiers refused to check out pork because it was against their religion - Imagine if that retailer fired them!