Owen Ullmann is Editor of the print edition of USA Today, and on page 2A on Tuesday, he was sounding off on the proposed Arizona bill -- SB 1062 -- to allow religious people to deny services to gay “marriages.” The headline was “Arizona’s anti-gay bill is shameful.” Ullman quickly devolved to strident historical comparisons: “These intolerant lawmakers must be nostalgic for Jim Crow laws.
Oh, but the segregationist schtick is fairly standard for liberals on this debate, so Ullmann shifted into portraying gays and conservatives as the Jews and their Nazi persecutors:
The Greater Phoenix Economic Council has urged Gov. Jan Brewer to veto the measure because a boycott by defenders of gay rights could harm the economy. To me, the argument falls far short. It is reminiscent of German businesses that fretted about the loss of Jews' purchasing power during the Nazi's [sic]reign.
Earlier in the article, Ullmann acted clueless, as if gay couples aren’t coming and demanding services for their gay “marriages” in explicit terms:
I'm curious how a business would even know which customers are gay. Would you have to sign a statement that you are heterosexual as a condition to being served? If two women are holding hands, does that make them a same-sex couple, or are they just sisters? If two men kiss in a store, are they gay ... or maybe, just French?
And if religious beliefs are a justification for refusing gay couples, shouldn't Arizona extend the principle to all religious beliefs? Devout Muslims should have the right to refuse service to women who are not covered in burqas. Christian Scientists should have the right to deny service to doctors and nurses or anyone who has health insurance. Hindus could refuse to serve anyone who likes to chow down on a hamburger. Atheists? You'd be out of luck just about everywhere.
