This is too brilliant not to share…
My husband Brad and I like to spend our holidays in the White Mountains of Arizona. There’s a small town called Show Low where we’ve passed many a merry Christmas. We’ve been regulars at the July 4th parades there, entertained friends and family over the years, and consider it our home away from home. But last year, it was very nearly going to be impossible for us to travel back to Arizona in good conscience. You see, at that time, Arizona was on the verge of passing a bill that would have made us feel entirely unwelcome.
The so-called “Religious Freedom Bill” would have allowed proprietors of establishments open to the public to refuse to serve customers if doing so would violate the “sincerely held” religious beliefs of the owner. On the surface, the proposed law seemed like a neutral way to protect the First Amendment rights of business owners.
But beneath that surface lurked a dangerous and divisive effect, granting hotels, bars and restaurants the right to refuse to serve LGBT persons and couples such as Brad and me, simply because our love did not comport with the religious views of the owners.
But thanks to pressures upon the governor’s office in days before she was set to sign the law, and in the face of a boycott of the state by tourists and the NFL, which threatened to move the Super Bowl to Pasadena, Gov. Jan Brewer ultimately decided to veto the law. Tolerance and equality won out that day.
Although we faced and defeated that challenge, many similar fires began to rage across the nation. A similar law went into effect in Mississippi not long after, and another measure in Arkansas is about to slip quietly into place there. And just this past week, Gov. Mike Pence of Indiana signed that state’s “Religious Freedom” bill, despite strong opposition from all manner of corporate citizens, religious leaders, and even athletic organizations, such as the NCAA.
Gov. Pence shamelessly pandered to the right wing of his party, perhaps because he is eyeing a run for the White House, or perhaps because he simply does not understand that bigotry, cloaked as religious protection, is still bigotry.
I have called for a boycott of Indiana by companies, conventions and tourists, not only to send a clear message to Indiana, but also to help stop the further erosion of our core civil values in other parts of this country. Indeed, bills like those passed in Mississippi and Indiana are now pending in many other states. Their backers seek to convey to LGBT people that our human rights are not inviolate, and that we may, and will, be treated as second-class citizens. That is what lies at heart of this issue; those are the values at stake.
I myself am a Buddhist, not a Christian. But I cannot help but think that if Christ ran a public establishment, it would be open to all, and He would be the last to refuse service to anyone. It is, simply put, the most un-Christian of notions.
So let us be clear what this is really about: divisive politics. The far right has lost the war over marriage equality, and quickly. It now has staked out a new ground and shrouded itself ostensibly within the ambit of the First Amendment – for who can deny that we ought to give religious freedom its full and fair due? It seeks refuge in the recent, and regrettable, U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Hobby Lobby, which appeared to open the door for exceptions to “government regulation” in the name of protecting religious beliefs.
Taken too far, such laws carry with them the corrosive effect of intolerance, and they harken back to the days where people like Brad and I could not marry, not because of our gender, but because of our race. I was born in a time where such laws against the mixing of races were viewed as the natural extension of God’s will, and I know how powerfully oppressive and insidious they can be. Some fifty years ago, it was not so uncommon for interracial couples to be shunned and turned out.
We live in a pluralistic and civil society, where our social contract demands we sometimes relinquish individual liberties in the name of a more just and open society. This means that while we are all entitled to our religious beliefs, the extent and impact of those beliefs, and what we may impose because of them, stops at the tips of our noses. This also means we must learn to respect and, yes, even love our neighbors, despite our differences.
I cannot help but think of Pope Francis going out of the Vatican to wash the feet of non-believers, setting an example for us all: Our differences in beliefs do not truly separate us, or elevate us over others. Rather, they highlight the rich tapestry that is humanity.
The doors of a school or a restaurant or a business, held open to the public, must be open to all. The days are over where some may be denied a seat at the table simply because of who they are – or in this case, whom they love. We cannot, and must not, march backward from where we have come.
George Takei is an actor, social justice activist, social media mega-power and star of the upcoming Broadway musical “Allegiance.”
5 thoughts on “George Takei: Boycott Indiana”
“But I cannot help but think that if Christ ran a public establishment, it would be open to all, and He would be the last to refuse service to anyone.”
WWJD, if he owned a print shop let’s say, and a customer asked him to reprint perfectly legal pornographic images? Would Jesus bend to the will of the state or would he subject himself to the ensuing punishment?
I daresay he’d print it and say to the likes of you something along the lines of John 8:3-11.
Rational minds and all that… good morning.
He’d officially announce his pending marriage to a known prostitute. LOL, then he’d print the pictures at bulk rate discounts and tell all you dumb f**ks to quit selectively following the parts of his, *word* that are convenient to you to financially enrich yourselves, flatter your own prideful egos and to grovel for votes to gain power, in order to subjugate other human beings in misery, while simultaneously destroying the garden of eden his father so lovingly gave us.
Of course that would be after he got over a fit of hysterical laughter upon reading your straw-man and nonsensical fluff argument meant to divert the discussion from the topic at hand.
Another attempted coup over logic, true human concern and reality, with distorted and twisted versions of religious beliefs.
I’ve never really understood why wingers like Denis think Christ would be impressed by their entitlement to hate and judge – not to mention their rabid support of politicians like Scott Walker who take from the poor and give to the rich. It’s like they haven’t even read the book they purport to love.
Comments are closed.