Memo to Arizona’s “Religious Freedom” Fighters: If I Don’t Like Your Mail I Might Not Deliver It

February 25, 2014 at 8:53 PM 3 comments

Fireworks via Wikimedia commons

(Image via Wikimedia Commons)

Yo, Arizona, do you really want to go down the road where anyone and everyone can refuse services to people they perceive as violating their “religious freedom?”

Let’s pretend I’m your letter carrier and I’m on my route walking toward your house.  While sifting through the envelopes I’m carrying I see a letter or a solicitation from the NRA or Planned Parenthood.  I’m opposed to one or the other so — per my “religious freedom” and the bill sitting on Governor Jan Brewer’s desk — I refuse service because delivering that letter would go against my “religious freedom” and I toss it.

That’s where you’re going.

Do you want letter carriers to decide what mail you get based on their “religious freedom?”

Seriously?  Think about the ramifications.

(P.S.  Here’s the definition of ramification.)

Oh, and I love how Republicans seem to have driven over their infamous rebranding plan.


Entry filed under: Dumbed Down, GLBTQ, Racism, Religion, Repression, Republicans, Including Wingers & "Moderates", WingNutO'Sphere.

The So-Called View From a Hotel Room in Beijing This Optical Illusion Will Blow Your Mind

3 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Lucius Svartwulf Helsen  |  February 26, 2014 at 12:15 AM

    Actually no, it wouldn’t work that way. The bill protects businesses that set a corporate policy based on the moral beliefs of their owners.

    It does not permit employees to violate company policy for the sake of their own beliefs.

    Example, a Jewish deli owner can make it his deli’s policy not to sell to Neo-Nazis, and the law protects him from being sued for denial of services.

    Example, a Jewish mail carrier must still deliver the mail to Neo-Nazis because that is the corporate policy of the USPS, and failure to perform his duties as a mail carrier means disciplinary action up to and including losing his job and being brought up on charges.

  • 2. Say It Ain't So Already  |  February 26, 2014 at 11:10 AM

    I know there are rules against letter carriers doing what I imagine in my post but if we keep going down this road we’re likely to get to a place where that could happen.

  • 3. Lucius Svartwulf Helsen  |  February 26, 2014 at 11:55 AM

    Maybe, but at the same time if we don’t protect people because of the “logical extreme” that can follow, by that logic we should keep banning gay marriage because the logical extreme of that is that polygamy should be allowed (which I actually agree) and then all other forms of marriage should be allowed because to say that a man and woman can be married, and a man/man or woman/woman, or a man/woman/woman, etc can be married then why not a 40 year old woman 14 year old boy, or vice versa, or a man and his car, or a woman and her vibrator.

    Denying protection simply because down the line it means someone might someday be protected while being a dick…is wrong. Religion is a constitutionally protected right, both in the first amendment, and in the same amendment that prevents us from discrimination based on race, sex, etc. This law merely is another codification of that constitutional protection.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed

Follow Me On Twitter


%d bloggers like this: