Posted on 02/23/2014 12:54:52 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Many first became acquainted with George Takei as “Sulu” on the original “Star Trek” TV series, but for a number of years the actor has been an outspoken left-wing, and particularly gay-rights, activist.
On Friday Takei switched his phasers on stun and penned a pointed “Raising Arizona” letter in reaction to the state legislature’s passage of a bill many view as anti-gay.
Calling it the “turn away the gay” bill, Takei promised a ground-shaking degree of trouble, including boycotts, if the measure is signed by Gov. Jan Brewer, The Raw Story noted.
“Your taxi drivers can refuse to carry us. Your hotels can refuse to house us. And your restaurants can refuse to serve us,” stated Takei’s letter, which appears on his blog. “You’re willing to ostracize and marginalize LGBT people to score political points with the extreme right of the Republican Party.”
Proponents of the bill see it as a protection for businesses that don’t want to serve LGBT people on religious grounds, but Takei writes that “no one is fooled. When I was younger, people used ‘God’s Will’ as a reason to keep the races separate, too. Make no mistake, this is the new segregation, yours is a Jim Crow law, and you are about to make yourself ground zero.”
Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed similar legislation in 2013, but The New York Times reported that it’s not clear if she will support the latest bill.
If she does, Takei writes, “make no mistake. We will not come. We will not spend. And we will urge everyone we know–from large corporations to small families on vacation–to boycott. Because you don’t deserve our dollars. Not one red cent.”
Takei noted that after Arizona nixed celebrating the Martin Luther King, Jr.’s holiday in 1989, the NFL moved a scheduled Super Bowl from Arizona to Pasedena, costing the state $500 million. Super Bowl XLIX is slated for the University of Phoenix in Glendale in 2015.
(Barney’s Beanery)
I think it can even be seen in the movie "The Loved One" (where the newspaper editor is hanging out).
In the 1970s, faggots stormed the bar and attempted to tear down the signs which led to LAPD confrontations.
Private property is private property.
Funny how "gay bars" and "gay parades" aren't exclusionary but heteros seeking a "meat market" to meet members of the OPPOSITE sex or at least avoid the shrill drama of queen males are prohibited from running such a watering hole.
Don't provoke Mr. Sulu or he will call upon the power of the rainbow to bring a swarm of interior decorators down upon you, you brute!
Couldn't this happen with the exclusion thing....as an example, say Mormons or Jews or Muslims had hotels that only rented rooms to their own. Assume they also had other hotels for everyone else. Assume they charged a lot less and gave a lot more services and extras in "their" hotels, subsidized by the outsider's hotels.
Wouldn't this law allow for that?
Mr. Takei doesn't understand that the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect so-called gay rights. And neither does Mr. Takei understand that the states are free to make laws which discriminate on the basis of constitutionally unprotected gay "rights," as long as such laws don't also unreasonably abrige constitutionally enumerated rights, such as the 1st Amendment right to religious expression.
So what Mr. Takei actually needs to do to protect gay rights is the following. The wrong way is to find a pro-gay activist judge who will wrongly legislate a gay rights amendment to the Constitution from the bench. But hopefully he will chose to properly establish gay "rights" within the framework of the Constitution by working his state and federal lawmakers, demanding that they comply with the Constitution's Article V by proposing a gay rights amendment to the Constitution to the states for ratification.
And if the states chose to ratify this proposed amendment, not likely imo, then gay rights will be constitutionally protected and Mr. Takei will be a hero.
The regulation of discrimination should perhaps be seen as a backdoor attempt to regulate the economy.
Sexuality is linked to religion and morality in this matter, meaning forcing religious people to do business they don’t want to is regulating the practice of their religion under the First Amendment.
They already do. There are hotels in key West which won’t allow straights to rent rooms.
Again, are you OK with the govt forcing people to sell services which are against their religion. Mind your own data business. If I want to do business with someone on is my choice, period.
Good point! It seems like the perfect business for a homosexual anyway, lol. Of course, then they’ll point to the fact that they wouldn’t make much money because hardly any gays are getting married since there are hardly any gays in the first place. Ooops, they gotta keep that quiet....
Dear George,
Your dollars and cents are no loss to the State of Arizona.
Take your fascism and stick it!!!
No, you are wrong here.
What the lavender lobby is demanding is not acceptance, it is approval.
To He!! with that!
And I’d contest most of that is unconstitutional.
So a restaurant or convenience store should take down their, "No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service," signs?
And a bar owner should have to serve an already heavily intoxicated person provided they have the means to pay?
“No, Mr. Sulu, ye canna beam up yer young friend.”
LOL!!!
Come to Oregon...you’ll find out.....bakeries must now make cakes for homo’s weddings.....so far
GAY
NOT GAY
If I choose to not watch a 2am re-run of Star Trek-tos or one of the first 5 Star Trek movies, will he call me a homophobe? With his current state of mind, most likely yes.
In American society today, outright separate but equal treatment wouldn’t be allowed. However, if someone has a genuine religious objection to a deviant lifestyle like homosexuality, they should have the right to refuse service to those people.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.