Skip to comments.In the wake of Arizona’s SB 1062, “Jim Crow” is the new “Hitler”
Posted on 03/02/2014 9:33:14 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
The entire flap over SB 1062 in Arizona has left a lot of people scratching their heads, particularly given the virtual media explosion over the fate of the bill and what it means going forward. As it turns out, there is similar legislation pending in Georgia even as we speak, and even though public clamor has already led to the bill being taken off the calendar, the rampant hyperbole which marked the coverage of Jan Brewers decision is not in short supply.
One of the leading shots across the bow was penned for CNN by the two person team of James Richardson and Stacey Abrams. By way of disclosure, Ive corresponded with Richardson many times over the years when he worked for the RNC and for Governor Haley Barbour. Abrams is apparently the Democrat minority leader in the Georgia Assembly. And when you get a two party, cross the aisle collaboration like this to denounce something, what could possibly go wrong?
"Georgia with its tumultuous past of discrimination is following Arizonas recently failed attempt to pass what amounts to anti-gay legislation with the Preservation of Religious Freedom Act.
The state may shift from the cradle of the civil rights movement to the vanguard of legalized 21st-century bigotry with the consideration of this legislation, modeled on Arizonas, that would allow businesses to refuse service to gay and lesbian customers on the basis of alleged religious conviction."
Being a bit of a pragmatist or any of a number of other, less flattering descriptions, as Ive been so often reminded I dont know if Jan Brewer signing that bill would have been the best idea or not. Not because the bill was some horrible exercise in oppression (it wasnt, in my opinion), but because opponents had so rapidly seized the media high ground in the battle, redefined it as they chose, and turned it into a potentially huge political liability in an election year. But none the less, the tactics employed in Arizona and now in Georgia are so over the top that they should have given any journalist with even a smidgen of a conscience left pause. This editorial provides an excellent example.
"Like the controversial Arizona bill, this broadly written proposal has profound implications not only for the aggrieved minority it would directly affect but also for the social reputation of the state at large. Those implications will permanently stain us, cementing the lasting ignominy of Jim Crow."
Seriously? Jim Crow? I have to wonder if any of these people actually read the text of the Arizona bill. I mean, unlike the Affordable Care Act copies of which are being used as construction material in new hydroelectric dams - this one was only two pages long. It wouldnt be that tough for them to actually read. And if they did, they might reach at least some of the same conclusions that Rich Lowry did.
"The bill was roughly 998 pages shorter than much of legislation that passes in Washington. Clocking in at barely two pages, it was easy to scan for disparaging references to homosexuality, for veiled references to homosexuality, for any references to homosexuality at all.
They werent there. A headline from The Week declared, There is nothing Christian about Arizonas anti-gay bill. Itd be more accurate to say that there was nothing anti-gay about Arizonas anti-gay bill.
The legislation consisted of minor clarifications of the states Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which has been on the books for 15 years and is modeled on the federal act that passed with big bipartisan majorities in the 1990s and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton."
Im really beginning to think that its past time we come up with an updated version of Godwins Law. Rather than being the first one to mention Hitler when speaking of someone with whom you disagree, perhaps we should be able to stop listening and tune out anyone who immediately invokes Jim Crow as soon as a legislative matter arises which even tangentially touches on issues of race, sexual orientation or gender, because this was just over the top if not over the rainbow.
Jim Crow laws barred entire segments of the social structure from people based exclusively on race, resulting in separate but very unequal facilities if any existed at all for minorities with the express consent of the government and law enforcement. In the case of these laws were talking about individual wedding photographers or bakers who may wish to not provide their services as part of a wedding ceremony which goes against their personal and religious beliefs. It gives such vendors the opportunity to defend themselves from attack and fiscal ruin such as what has already happened in New Mexico based on that decision. It does not cut off the couple from getting the same service elsewhere. And as Lowry noted in a somewhat tongue in cheek manner, [t]he wedding business is not exactly bristling with hostility to gay people.
Everyone is welcome to debate the relative merits of these bills on both sides, and particularly given current questions about how heavily the thumb of the government will rest on the shoulders of small business owners, its a debate worth having. But lets cool down on the end of the world hyperbole, shall we? Not everything is the same as Jim Crow laws, no matter how clever you may think that sounds in your op-ed. I swear
some of you people are worse than Hitler.
“Jim Crow” is what the SB 1062 was designed to prevent.
The LGBT activists used “human rights commissions” or “human relations commissions” to harass small business owners in a couple of states ending up in fines.
What’s going with this and the Phil Robertson matter, the Chick-Fil-A matter and so on is that individuals and business owners with religious convictions opposed to homosexuality and or gay marriage are being targeted by LGBT activists seeking to fire them from their jobs or boycott their businesses on the basis of those convictions.
Religious people are being targeted to be denied employment or be driven out of business on the basis of their beliefs about homosexuality or gay marriage.
Its a new kind of Jim Crow from the LGBT activists and their hostility to religious people with protest signs and boycotts as happened in California after Proposition 8 passed recalls the brown shirted thugs who stood outside of businesses in early 1930’s Germany with signs reading “Juden” on them.
In the wake of Arizonas SB 1062, Right to Choose goes out the window.
I dont have the right to do with my body as I want.
I must bake the cake.