It could be deemed a ridiculous move by legislators to pass a bill that denies services to same-sex couples in Kansas and Arizona.
   Mark Joseph Stern, columnist for slate.com said in an article on Feb.13, when passed, the new law will allow any individual, group or private business to refuse service to gay couples if “it would be contrary to their sincerely held religious beliefs.”
   “Private employers can continue to fire gay employees on account of their sexuality. Stores may deny gay couples goods and services because they are gay. Hotels can eject gay couples or deny them entry in the first place. Businesses that provide public accommodations — movie theaters, restaurants — can turn away gay couples at the door,” he said. “And if a gay couple sues for discrimination, they won’t just lose; they’ll be forced to pay their opponent’s attorney’s fees. As I’ve noted before, anti-gay businesses might as well put out signs alerting gay people that their business isn’t welcome,” Stern said.
    In line behind Kansas is Arizona,  which passed a similar bill in a 33-27 vote Thursday.
    Leslie Baker, political science instructor at Mississippi State University, said as seen with the Arizona case, like-minded states tend to pick up the policies that others adopt or introduce.
   “The Arizona bill is as full of as many loopholes as the Kansas bill that makes it possible to justify discrimination for just about anything, not just same-sex couples. Certainly, the courts will strike it down if it passes. The Arizona governor vetoed similar legislation last year. It’s really a shame that legislatures can’t spend time actually trying to help the economy and job markets instead of debating this type of legislation. These bills are very indicative of how inefficient and ideological legislatures have become,” Baker said.
   In a democracy, the voice of every citizen counts. That right has been safely secured in our first amendment, the voice says LGBTQ citizens must be given equal rights or a voice like that of MSU’s football player. Rufus Warren recently tweeted, “I don’t have a problem with gay people.. Be happy! But I look down on gay football players.. This is a MAN sport! And being gay is not a man.”
     Freedom of speech grants space for both opinions, but should an opinion shape public policy? Should legislators be swayed by the populous instincts of the constituency they represent?
    This is debatable and needs to be brought up for discussion, in television studios and in editorials.
    You can feel either way — against LGBTQ rights or for LGBTQ rights, against patriarchy or for patriarchy — but should your opinion help decrease or lessen the fundamental rights of an American because of his religion, sexual orientation, country of origin or political affiliation?
  The answer is no. No matter where you live in the United States, there are certain core values on which all Americans agree — the right to free speech, free exercise of religion, the right to peaceably assemble, bear arms, etc. We can’t  modify or change the core values of our constitution.
   Imagine: what message would the bill in Arizona and Kansas, if passed in the House of Senate and signed by the governor, send to the international stage? A person can be denied service based upon his sexual orientation in America. Is this a good precedent to set? The international media has already begun its coverage on the story and  closely observes the progress of these bills.
   I am not against having an anti-gay opinion or a pro-gay opinion. I am against swaying public policies in a way that challenge the values upon which this nation was born.
   In the coming days the bill could be a law in these two states. The only hope is this does not spread to other states. Additionally, political experts will tell you, if a federal government intervention to our constitution is a possibility, it could soon be a reality.