Arizona’s Discrimination License: A Mark Fiore Political Cartoon Video

Submitted by Elaine Magliaro, Weekend Contributor

Mark Fiore said he was thankful that Governor Jan Brewer vetoed Arizona’s “religious freedom” bill last week. If the bill became law, Fiore said, it “would’ve given people carte blanche to discriminate against gay people (and others, for that matter).” Fiore also said what he found most baffling about the whole thing was the existence of a state legislature that would pass such a bill.

95 thoughts on “Arizona’s Discrimination License: A Mark Fiore Political Cartoon Video”

  1. Bron,

    Back to Randian philosophy again? Altruism is evil; selfishness is next to godliness. Oops, wait…my bad. The great Ayn was an atheist. Let me try again: Altruism is evil; selfishness is good.

  2. Giovanna De La Paz:

    Capitalism is a very good system for pulling the entire world out of the filth of a wooden hovel and death at 30.

    There isnt any better system as yet devised and there isnt a more moral system as yet devised.

    Socialism is evil, pure and simple. Individual socialists are no more or less evil than individual capitalists but the system of socialism and the altruism which supports socialism is evil.

  3. While I condemn Capitalism as an evil system, I am rational enough to understand its importance. There is enough room in this country for Capitalism and programs that better meet the needs of the people. That is not Socialism. It seems somebody used the word Socialism and another person repeated it, and it became part of the social lexicon. While I would love to discuss this particular topic with you in depth, there is not enough time or space.

  4. Giovanna De La Paz: I just noticed your post. For some unknown reason you are making an assumption that just because I criticize Capitalism I am a socialist. That’s too big of a leap. It’s not a case of either/or.

  5. annieofwi, if given legal protection, you doubt businesses would be so bold as to state their dislike for gays in advertising, but if given legal protection, those same business owners wouldn’t hesitate to boldly and openly discriminate against them? That doesn’t seem consistent.

  6. I think the First amendment would allow owners of businesses to publically state they do not like gays, but where they would get into trouble is by actually turning them away and envying them service. I doubt any businesses would actually be so bold as to state their dislike for gays in advertising, they instead want government protections to allow them to legally discriminate, which is a cowardly way of doing the same thing.

    Spinelli, you sound stalkerish again today, I suggest you read the civility rule, you should’ve memorized it by now. I see your behavior is revving up, be careful.

  7. annieofwi, I admittedly don’t know enough about civil rights law, but I’m pretty sure you can’t just post a sign that says, “we don’t want your kind here” while claiming you don’t technically/legally discriminate or deny service on a prohibited basis because you’d serve “their kind” if they decided to come in.

    Marco, that court case is fascinating. I thought I was just posting a hypothetical situation with the gay wedding. That article brought up another question that I hadn’t thought of. Can a Jewish tattoo artist refuse to put a swaztika on someone’s arm? Can they refuse any kind of service to someone who has a swaztika already on their arm? Where do you draw the line? Who gets to draw the line?

  8. Spinelli, are you once again building a strawman? It is neither here nor there regarding any “networks” among homosexuals. It would help to prove your point if you were to once, back up your assertions. The subject we are discussing is legal discrimination of people based on their sexual identity. Do try to keep up.

  9. Some people are not deep thinkersand can only superficially spout nonsense without ever citing or backing up their numerous assertions. What is amusing is that they actually expect others to take them seriously and give their opinions credence.

  10. The gay community is MUCH smarter than some folks here. They have networks that let gay consumers know which national, regional, local, businesses are gay friendly and which are not. They don’t need no stinkin’ nannies.

  11. Why not make the homophobic business owner reveal his bigotry while at the same time disallowing legal discrimination? I don’t think revealing his feelings toward gays would be illegal in itself. First amendment protecting that I would think.

    “I, owner of the Homophobia Bakery must disclose my intense loathing of homosexuals, so much so that my products would possibly be substandard. Engage my services a your own risk. No guarantees will be given that my bakery will be acceptable. However I will not deny service to those who insist on using me as their baker of choice.”

    I think that would be legal.

  12. Wow, We would call that the Hester Prynne rule for advertising. How perfectly shaming old school.

Comments are closed.