Darcie Maranich

Darcie Maranich

 

I don’t know about yours, but my Facebook news feed was abuzz with SB1062 (or, what has been dubbed Arizona’s legalized prejudice bill) news this week. Locals and out-of-state friends alike weighed in with opinions on the highly controversial bill, some with insightful commentary and others with unfounded rants either in favor or opposition of. The topic saturated news and social media channels on both a local and national level. Which is why I wasn’t the least bit surprised when two of my teenage daughters brought up the topic for conversation at home.

I have to preface by telling you that my daughters are completely void of discriminatory thoughts or views when it comes to race, religion, or sexual orientation—as they should be. It stands to reason, then, that my daughters would oppose any bill that would threaten the rights of any given group of people. And indeed, they did. Independently of one another, my daughters incredulously asked if I’d heard about the bill and when I confirmed that I had, they proceeded to passionately argue against “legalized prejudice”. I listened intently while they spoke, specifically hoping to hear proof that they’d actually researched the topic and formed an opinion, rather than simply regurgitate the rhetoric they’d read on Twitter. Sadly, that component seemed to be missing from each of their arguments, which, of course, prompted me to pose a scenario that I knew would give them pause.

“Let’s say you’re a photographer,” I began, “and one day you get a call from the editor of a magazine affiliated with The Church of Satan. They want to hire you to do a photo shoot depicting church members, oh I dunno, setting fire to the cross or whatever it is they do. And then they want to publish these photos with a caption that attributes the photos to you. By name. Meaning that for the rest of eternity your name will be associated with something that—in your heart of hearts—you believe to be wrong. When they call to hire you, would you say yes?”

Both of my daughters answered with a resounding ‘no’.

“Tell me, then,” I continued, “do you think that the editor of that magazine should be able to sue you for standing up for what you believe?”

Again they answered with a ‘no’.

“So maybe that bill isn’t altogether evil after all, huh?”

“Maybe not,” they conceded.

Here’s the thing: I want for my children to continue to believe—to know--that all people are created equal, regardless of the color of their skin or the gender of the person they are attracted to. But—and this is a big but—I also want them to understand that you cannot legislate a person’s thoughts. By standing in firm opposition of a bill that would permit small business owners to refuse service to gay or lesbian consumers, my daughters believed they were standing in support of equality for all. And I would be the first to applaud them for that. But given that they are the next generation of voters, I think it is imperative that they also understand the importance of knowing the facts—all of them--and considering the flip side to every political stance they formulate.

Anything short of that puts the freedom of us all—straight, gay or otherwise—on the line.

(1) comment

John Flanagan

Excellent take on SB1062. The bill was too broad and subject to abuse, and since a firestorm resulted which affected everything from cancelled conferences in Arizona to a threatened boycott of the Super Bowl, Governor Brewer needed to veto it.
Having acknowledged everyone is against discrimination generally, the actual acceptability of specific forms of discrimination needs a healthy debate.
While gay activists cry fowl over any form of disagreement over same gender marriage, attacking all arguments against it as bigotry, they are not hesitant to use coercion, intimidation, and boycotts against Christian owned business owners (I.e Chick-Fil-A) for merely expressing the religious based conviction that marriage should be only one man and one woman...as has been the case for thousands of years. A case for discrimination? Indeed...and coming from the gay activists in a very fascist manner.
In the same light, a beauty contestant expressed her view in favor of traditional marriage on national television, and these views were expressed respectfully....the result....calls for her head by the activists who believe only their opinion matters. What an UnAmerican and repressive approach to respecting other views.
The shelved SB1062 did not resolve the future repression of opposing viewpoints and debate in America. Even corporations today, practicing this form of social tyranny which we Americans are not accustomed to, have jumped on the gay marriage bandwagon, and in doing so, act as enablers to the unjust discrimination tactics gay activists have inflicted on the First Amendment rights of all Americans to speak their peace freely.
America today is no longer a place for free people. It is a place where political correctness and the views of only one side may be articulated. Persecution of conservative and traditional minded Christians has come to our land. Half of the country is opposed to gay marriage. The other half of the country in favor of it feels compelled to tell the other half to sit down and be silent, a very unreasonable option, and one many of us will never accept.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.