Apple Urges Arizona Governor to Veto SB1062

Putting aside the fact that the Arizona law that would allow businesses to refuse services to gays and lesbians is likely unconstitutional, critics are saying that it will also hurt the state's ability to engage in commerce across state lines, damage local businesses who do not want to refuse service to anyone and will be lumped in with those who do, and may cause companies who want to bring jobs to the state to find somewhere else to go (either they are publicly opposed to the bill or do not want to be associated with the state or its controversial legislation).

Proponents of the bill argue that private businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone they like.

One of the companies who apparently opposed the bill is Apple, who planned on opening up a manufacturing plant in Mesa, Arizona that would employ and estimated 700 people and create over 1,000 construction and management jobs. Seeing the environment that such a law could create, Apple has asked Governor Jan Brewer (R) to veto the Arizona Senate bill SB1062, according to a report in the Arizona Capitol Times. Details of the conversation between the unnamed Apple representative and the Governor beyond that small bit of information were not detailed.

Back in November of last year the Governor Brewer touted Apple's decision to open up an operation in the state as a pretty big deal.

"Apple is indisputably one of the world's most innovative companies and I'm thrilled to welcome them to Arizona," Brewer said last year. "Apple will have an incredibly positive economic impact for Arizona and its decision to locate here speaks volumes about the friendly, pro-business climate we have been creating these past four years."

The question is, how big of a deal is the deal to the Governor? We do not know as of this writing, because the Governor has not yet offered an official position on the bill.

Apple joins AT&T and several hotel chains in its public opposition to the bill.

Earlier in the week Arizona Senator John McCain came out in opposition to the bill.

Source: GameSpot

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone


  1. 0
    Wymorence says:

    And it's not just Apple either, the NFL is apparently watching the situation closely and there's some chatter Arizona might lose this year's Super Bowl if it passes.

  2. 0
    Kajex says:

    By all means, let such businesses post signs saying "No Service to Darkies" on their windows- because the language of the bill is so broad that if such an idea is a "sincerely held religious belief", they can get away with it. The language is broad enough that bigoted Christians could choose not to service single mothers or divorced individuals.

    This is not about gays asking bakeries to bake them a cake- it's about people asking business owners to bake them a cake and being rejected because they happen to hold opposing religious or social views. When a gay friend of mine goes into a store to purchase a pound of deli meat from the grocery store, he is not demanding preferential treatment based on his orientation, and his beliefs are not being forced on anyone else. Proponents of this bill act as if providing a service to these members of society is akin to endorsing "pagan" or "immoral" acts- but selling a bed to a gay couple is not the same thing as endorsing the buttfucking they're going to engage in on it- and if the attitude such bigots have is that this is the only aspect on which to judge gay people, then it's a business and attitude we could probably do without.

    Incidentally, because gays cannot marry in Arizona, I highly doubt there would be an incident from a gay couple asking a bakery for a wedding cake.

    The only thing that this bill is doing is allowing people's personal beliefs as a justification for denying service to anybody they don't want to- put short, it's discrimination.

    Also, your pork example fails- a Muslim store that refuses to stock pork is not the same thing as denying a service to someone for not being Muslim. The former is a refusal to stock a certain item, but the latter is outright rejection of -all- services based on religious beliefs.

  3. 0
    Oxide_Renegade says:

    Eh to avoid getting too heavy into the matter I'll be blunt, you would bitch if someone wouldn't serve you because of something you are in which has no reflection on the business what so ever. For Example if you were a man and the girl serving you McDonalds could deny serving you for being something you can't control. Now if this was something like a minister marrying a gay couple, or a Muslim catering for a Christian party then I could see your point, but this is blatantly saying that because of who you are attracted to, you may be denyed the right to be served by businesses.

  4. 0
    Neo_DrKefka says:

    Since this is not gaming and pure politics I am going to give my political opinion. If your a Muslim and choose not to sell pork to a Christian you should not be forced to since it is your store. If your a Muslim and you refuse to serve a gay couple and bake them a cake at your cake it’s your right to not to serve anyone you do not like. Sadly with the advent of the Civil Rights Movement the freedom not to like something is frowned upon in the liberal Meccas.

Leave a Reply