Arizona SB1062

This bill has been labeled across the country as an anti-homosexual bill, when in fact - it is not.  The intention of SB1062 was to promote the rights of business and church groups to not be forced to perform service(s) which may be in conflict with their own moral beliefs - religious or otherwise.  The fact is, it is an unnecessary bill.  Businesses already have the right to refuse service to anyone - it's their prerogative to do so.  If they turn away business - it's their bottom line which is at stake.  Those who oppose such a stance are free to take their business elsewhere.  

Since this new bill really doesn't DO anything, it's silly legislation which is only allowing the state to be opened to unnecessary attacks from some with an agenda to oppose anyone exercising personal freedoms.  It can only bring upon calls for sanctions or boycotts - and really, again, the intent of the bill was not to put down any particular group, but to recognize the rights of other groups.  

I still find it ironic that roughly 3.5% of the population gets so much attention!  When greater than 96% do not share in the homosexual lifestyle, why do we spend so much time debating the topic?  (See stats sited on the CathApol Blog).  Certainly, in this country, individuals who wish to pursue a lifestyle which is morally contrary to others have the right to do so - so long as their pursuit of such a right does not trample upon the rights of those who do not share their moral (or amoral) view.  In short, homosexuals do not have the right to force their morality upon those who "rightfully" oppose them.  

Still, I repeat, SB 1062 really doesn't do anything that individuals do not already have the right to do, or not do!  For THIS reason, I would recommend that Governor Brewer does NOT sign this bill into law.  She has until the end of the week to decide.

Please feel free to share your thoughts and/or share this article!  .

Nevermind "The Back of the Bus"

In a Tweet from "BarackObama" on the anniversary (Dec. 1) of Rosa Parks act which was called "civil disobedience" we see in an attempt to recognize her President Obama has not merely pushed her to the back of the bus, but removed her completely!

On December 1, 1955, in Montgomery, Alabama, Parks refused to obey bus driver James F. Blake's order that she give up her seat in the colored section to a white passenger, after the white section was filled. Parks was not the first person to resist bus segregation. Others had taken similar steps in the twentieth century, including Irene Morgan in 1946, Sarah Louise Keys in 1955, and the members of the Browder v. Gayle lawsuit (Claudette Colvin, Aurelia Browder, Susie McDonald, and Mary Louise Smith) arrested months before Parks. NAACP organizers believed that Parks was the best candidate for seeing through a court challenge after her arrest for civil disobedience in violating Alabama segregation laws though eventually her case became bogged down in the state courts. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks).

Now, would not the following picture have been a bit more appropriate?