Sexual Orientation isn't Different than Race, Age, or Gender... Oops... It is in Arizona.

The year is 2014 and Arizona has just passed a certain anti-gay law; one that is much more controversial than others. This bill has given businesses the right to refuse service to gay and lesbian couples, IF they explain to them their religious beliefs. The rule has always been "You have to serve someone even if they're different than you. This includes race, gender, age, religion, yadda yadda." But somehow sexual orientation isn't included in the list. And this isn't right. How is sexual orientation different than race, age, or gender? The quick answer is, it's not.
   
First counter to the bill: he's just another customer, who happens to have a boyfriend. It's incredibly rude and wrong to deny someone to buy an apple pie, or a geometric scarf, from a business because you don't approve of their wife or husband or girlfriend or boyfriend or gender fluid partner or whatever. They aren't there to directly combat your religious beliefs. They just want a freaking pie or a trendy scarf. They are a customer, a customer who will help the business pay their bills, on time. That's how business owners should see them. Just another customer. Who just really really wants pie. Just let them have the pie, seriously.

Second counter to the bill: sexual orientation isn't a topic to discriminate against. And hey, guess what, neither is race or age or gender. Arizona says that you have to serve old Asian girls, and three-year-old Cuban boy twins. They are individuals, with their individual races, ages, genders, and sexual orientations. Have you ever wondered what gay and lesbian couples are? Simply, they're individuals. Each with their own race, age, gender, sexual orientation. The only difference is that they are in a relationship. So you can't refuse an individual, but you can refuse certain pairs of individuals. Cool. Great logic you have there, Arizona.

Third counter to the bill: religion isn't a "get out of jail free card". Many like to use religion as an excuse for their behavior. Obviously this is wrong, because it's getting to the point that it's being used to justify discrimination; something that simply can't be justified in anyway, shape, or form. If someone tried to say that they can discriminate against boys under the age of 13 because your religion says it's fine, you would get so much flack for it, you wouldn't believe. This should be the same with sexual orientation. It doesn't allow you to be a jerk to others of a certain age or race or gender. So, it shouldn't allow you to be an even bigger jerk to others of a certain sexual orientation.

People can counter that America's freedom of religion can allow them to discriminate against some sexual orientations. Arizona inhabitants can say "no" to gay and lesbian couples, if they explain how their religion is against homosexuality. But imagine if this was the same with race? What would happen if a business owner said a Russian woman couldn't get a seat because her so-and-so religion decided it would hate every Russian ever. Too bad for the strange-religioned hostess. It's the law to seat the Russian. Not only is it the law, it's basic human rights. It's kind. Don't be judgmental. You might believe something about someone after thirty seconds of meeting them, and guess what, you're probably wrong. If a customer is willing to purchase a product from your company, just let them, regardless of race, age, gender, OR sexual orientation.

In America, we've been given the freedom to say what we want to say, worship who we want to worship (or not), yet we can't even love who we want to love without someone saying it's wrong. Hopefully Arizona will realize their wrongdoing in allowing business owners the right to refuse service to gay and lesbian couples, when in reality, sexual orientation is no different than race or age or gender. You can't discriminate against it.

Good luck, Arizona.

May your love be free and your summers a little less hot so they can be more enjoyable.


http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/21/us/arizona-anti-gay-bill/

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/02/22/opinion/whitaker-arizona-law/index.html?hpt=hp_t5

Grapes of Wrath: 19

Chapter nineteen starts off by describing how, before Americans took over California, the land belonged to Mexico and the Mexicans. He tells how the hungry, for food and for land, Americans simply took the land and made it theirs. More importantly, and the main point of the chapter, is that farmers became business owners and farming became industry.
Steinbeck describes the farmers as "no longer farmers at all, but little shopkeepers of crops, little manufacturers who must sell before they can make" (pg 232). This shows the mental shift from farmer to businessman; the thoughts of growing to feed a family turned to thoughts of growing for a profit, and a large one at that.
He also distinguished the change of the crops. They turned from family ingredients to crops that would "feed the world" and turn an impressive profit. The crops changed from grain to fruit trees; from simple vegetables to "stoop crops" like lettuce and potatoes (232). Again, this shows the mentality of the change from farming to industry; the want to grow more and more and profit more and more as well.
This, of course, defined America at the time. Farmers turned into business owners and farming turned into industry. However, this also defines America as of now, as well. As seen through Fast Food Nation, the world of food is now just a huge business. There are companies that indeed "feed the world", considering they are one of the very very few companies to produce certain foods, as seen mostly through livestock and meat packaging. Very seldom are family farms seen anymore. It's all just industry and factory work now. It's peculiar that as Steinbeck described the change during the Grapes of Wrath era, he would also turn out to describe the future as well; farmers are business owners and farming is industry.