I get where conservative Christian supporters of HB 2153, the "expand the definition of exercise of religion" legislation in Arizona are coming from.  In the land of the home and the free, it's a no-brainer that I don't have to work for anyone that I don't want to work for.  Granted, of all the things I do, I only currently get paid for Tarot reading, so my situation is different than the average.  But the idea is that I don't have read Tarot for anyone I don't want to.  I could not do a reading because I'm cranky today, because the would-be client wore puse, or because they wore a Mitt 2016 pen.  I have a hard time even writing the imaginary circumstance that I wouldn't do a reading because of race, sex, or sexuality--it's just too repugnant--but clearly others don't feel that way.  There are and should be laws against discrimination, but when a private person offers a service, it seems that they should be able to decide who they'll provide it for.  The difference, in my mind, is if I open a hotel and decide that single men can't rent a room, I'm crossing a legal line; if I decide I've got plenty of room in my house and want to rent out a room, it's just my preference to rent to another woman.

So way back when I heard that a "Christian" photographer wouldn't take pictures of a lesbian couple's commitment ceremony in New Mexico, I thought she was an asshole.  Were I one of them, I would definitely put her name out there and tell the story far and wide, letting everyone know the kind of bigot she is.  Hopefully the business she would lose from LGBT people and allies would make a statement.

Instead, the couple filed a discrimination complaint.  And some Arizona legislators decided to make sure that never happened in their state.

While I wouldn't have filed a complaint and I still think the photographer is an asshole, Arizona (sorry, all you good hearted, progressive Arizonans) is the only bad guy here.

See, the couple was discriminated against, and they had every right to file that complaint.  They also happen to live in a state that on the one hand does not allow same-sex marriages, but on the other hand doesn't allow other businesses to discriminate against gay people.  Legally, the photographer wasn't me offering a room in my home to another woman.  She was me offering rooms in my hotel only to women who were renting with men, and she lost the case.

Of course, it's not as simple as that.  Photography is an art, protected by the First Amendment, and in another state, the photographer's right to be an asshole might have trumped the couple's right to be treated as people.  Enter Arizona.

Like I said, I get what the AZ legislators are trying to do.  As much as it hurts my heart, I understand the idea that just as the couple is free to be who they are, other individuals are free to not want to be a part of it. What the legislators refuse to understand is that what you're trying to do isn't always what you are doing.

Trying to create a law that would protect someone from providing a service that they imagine is against their religion opens the door for all sorts of discrimination that goes so far beyond taking pictures. I watched the steam of the House session for HB 2153 and the opposing members gave impressive testimony about how doctors can use this law not to serve gay patients and the many other harms it could cause if it passed, but supporters simply refused to hear it.

Start hearing it.  Draft another bill that does what you're trying to do instead of ignoring what this one acutely can do.