Because we have decided that after decades of bigotry, violence and discrimination that the rights of gay people to their life supersede the rights of free association for public businesses.
Why nitpick over what is clearly an example? But to indulge, prior to the Obergefell ruling, 31 U.S. states held statues banning same-sex unions. That was just 5 years ago.
Gay Marriage was legalized nationally, not limited to 2 provinces, so it was actually significant and they did support it and pushed through the legislation.
Same with this bill. To downplay it because companies have already been adjusting to this expected reality quite petty, and they deserve full credit for the legislation of it.
Even just drawing from American history, big business interests lobbied extremely hard for desegregation and civil rights in the 1950s and 1960s. Even today in America, big business is one of the most powerful interests in favor of LGBT-rights[1].
Another example was big business' demands for reform in the apartheid regime of South Africa[2].
Nonsense. America was ahead of the curve on gay marriage before Obergefell and its abortion laws as of yesterday and in many states today are far more liberal than Europe.
Except this isn't true. You're right that in 2013 we weren't burning gays at the stake like some imagined Victorian era scheme. But thinking I suggested that is putting words in my mouth. But in 2016 it was definitely a national conversation if a bakery was allowed to deny service based on the sexual orientation of the purchasing party. No, we weren't roaming the street mad max style hunting down gas, but neither was it all rainbows and lollipops where no one gave a shit if two men held hands in public.
If I understand it correctly, history is repeating itself in that some business also helped push for rights in the 1950s, ie. serving everyone at the same lunch counter at some stores even though it was illegal at the time.
The difference is this time at least people aren't being beaten and killed over this (at least not in mass).
But it does not help at all when the President of the United States says that gay rights are okay when they need fresh bodies for the wars to kill and be killed but on gay marriage "well he's still not convinced". It boggles my mind.
I know this is nowadays seen as a naive or counter-productive
Apple and many other US employers extended health and other benefits to LGBTQ partners of employees for a couple of decades before Obergefell. Do you think they shouldn't have?
I think you need to research the tremendous effort and money that has gone into political activism on behalf of gay rights. I think you're succumbing to hindsight bias, where things look easy and inevitable after they have happened.
They're gonna have a hard time naming things after ppl. who were in US Govt. managerial positions before the 1990s. Discrimination based on sexual orientation was not just enthusiastically pursued, it was often mandatory & recommended.
reply