Arizona State Senator Nancy Barto visited Your World two days ago to defend the anti-gay bill (now vetoed) she co-sponsored. Although host Neil Cavuto did question the bill’s provisions (a sure sign it was losing Republican support), he did so in the gentlest possible terms. But he failed to challenge Barto’s ridiculous claim that the law was actually good for gays because it would protect “a homosexual printer” from having to print signs for the Westboro Baptist Church.
Cavuto asked Barto about Republicans calling on Gov. Jan Brewer to veto the bill (which she did last night). He said, “The argument used by a lot of gay groups is that it is anti-gay and that a business owner who is against gay marriage, you know, sees a gay couple walk in, wants to order something, they want to refuse that couple, this bill would protect them… It’s deemed to be anti-gay. What do you say to that?”
Barto said, “It’s deemed that way because of the opponents. But frankly, it doesn’t give people the right to do anything more than they can do right now.” She later contradicted that statement - and got a pass on it from Cavuto.
Cavuto asked, “How different would that be about establishments not allowing blacks to be served at a restaurant?”
The examples across the country are growing. Like, you have Elaine Huguenin in New Mexico is a perfect example. She is fine, probably, with serving anybody a plate of brownies or cupcakes but when it comes to participating, being forced to participate in a gay ceremony, same-sex ceremony, that’s where she is able to say, “You know, this really violates my religious beliefs,” and she’s been forced to either pay a fine or be succumbed to serve in that instance. Is that right? Is that what America’s about? …This is not just for Christians. It’s all faiths.
Cavuto continued, “A lot of you are saying that… some people back in the 40s, the 50s, and the 60s held the same view about serving African-Americans, and that we grew from that, and that this is the same potential slippery slope. What do you say to that?”
“Absolutely not,” Barto insisted. That’s when she tried to argue that the law is actually good for gays.
Consider this: would you want a homosexual printer to have to be forced to prints signs for a Westboro Baptist protest event? …Without this protection in law, that’s possible in Arizona and New Mexico.
Instead of questioning such a ridiculous comparison, Cavuto said, “Alright, I see where you’re coming from.”
Also not mentioned? The law may well have been unconstitutional. The day before, on Fox News Radio, Judge Andrew Napolitano said:
This legislation is, in this era, profoundly unconstitutional. …Government can’t do things based on hatred or stereotypes. So to permit someone to refuse to serve a birthday cake or a wedding cake to a gay person but to compel them to serve that wedding cake to a straight person is plain stereotypes and hatred and the Constitution prohibits government from doing that.