OCR Text |
Show UVU REVIEW A8 OPINIONS MARCH 17, 2014 PHOTO COURTESY OF WHISKKID.COM An old debate has been ressurected by a recently vetoed Arizona bill By Michael Houck Staff Writer mikehouck0604@hotmail.com With recent state Supreme Court cases overruling many of the bans on same-sex marriage across the country, supporters of same-sex and LGBTQ rights are seeing real change, which is finally moving in the right direction. But opponents of this movement are really ramping up, trying to counteract what is happening in their states. One case is that Utah Legislators "stuck their heads in the sand" when they were advised by Republican leaders in both the Senate and the House to do nothing with bills about anti-discrimination, focusing on SB 100. Again, we are seeing this in other states but right now, Utah's southern neighbor, Arizona, is where they're getting the most heat as antigay proponents try to counteract what is going on. In the midst of equal rights legislation, the media caught wind of a bill in Arizona titled Senate Bill 1062. Supporters of the bill named it the "Religious Freedom" bill and opponents called it the "No Cake for Gays" bill. Basically what the bill would have done was give the right for any business owner to refuse service to anyone if that individual went against the practice of the owner's religious beliefs. The reasoning for the bill's creation comes from a Supreme Court ruling last August in their neighboring state of New Mexico. Back in 2006, a same-sex couple wanted to get their pictures taken, but the photographers refused to do so based on religious beliefs. The court ruled that the company was denying service, not because of religious beliefs, but because they were discriminating against the same-sex couple. The court compared it to an establishment refusing to serve a couple of a different race. SB 1062 was written essentially to protect Arizona businesses from being sued if they denied service to a same-sex couple, granted their religious views are cited as a reason not to serve them. The problem, though, is the way they are bringing but many cases from the attention to the bill and also past, un-related to same-sex the side effects that the bill marriage, seem trivial today. Back in the 1980s, with could cause in the future. The lawmakers in Arizona the woman's rights moveargued that the bill's intent ment, businesses didn't want is not to discriminate against to give married women the the LGBTQ community, but same salary because their to protect those who don't religion didn't believe that want to serve someone that women are equal compared is LGBTQ and could deny to men. a service based on religious Of course this excuse beliefs without penalty. didn't hold up in courts back According to Arizona then and now people are trySenator Al Melvin, who ing to do this to the LGBT voted for the bill, said in a community. CNN interview that he can't Now, here come the side recall any cases in Arizona effects of such a bill. that anyone has been sued Potentially, any business or went to court because of could deny someone a serreligious freedom and same- vice just because of differsex marriage. He argues that ent religious views as long this bill was a "pre-emptive as the business says those strike" because this could magic words. happen in the future. It spits in the face of the Discussion of equal rights decades-long battle for is nothing new to America, equality and sends the Amer- ican consciousness spiraling back to a time of segregation and hate. What same-sex opponents are trying to do is restrict rights to the LGBTQ community before same-sex marriage even becomes legal. They are making this as difficult as possible for same-sex couples to get the same rights as normal, average Americans, which is unfair. In the end, this bill was vetoed so we didn't have to see the disaster it would have caused. Strangely enough, some lawmakers who voted to approve this bill wanted it to be vetoed afterwards, along with some businesses. In Arizona, those who want a cake can purchase one. The message for businesses is equally simple: just make the cake; it's your job. Tech in the lecture hall Our social media screens act more as a supplement, not distraction, to our classroom experience By Jimmy Hall Assistant Opinions Editor @Jimmyrhall There used to be a time when all you needed when you arrived to class was a notebook, pen and your textbook. Those days have gone the way of the dinosaur. Nowadays, you would be considered lucky if you don't sit behind some student surfing Buzzfeed, tweeting, or check out his or her significant other's Facebook. Technology, in the form of laptops, tablets and smartphones, has taken over our classroom desks and our attention. My question is: should we be allowed to have these in class? And my initial reaction is: yes! My main argument for why technology should be allowed is that it can be a great supplement for learning. Have you ever had a term or phrase thrown around in class that you had no clue about? Instead of slowing down the momentum of the class, one can do a quick Google search of the term for some additional research. We are lucky enough to live in this information age where these resources are readily available. Using tech during school also depends on the type of class you're in. If you even look down for a second in an algebra class you can miss an integral Professors should be looking into implementing technology and social media into their classrooms rather than turning their nose up to it. step in the problem solving process. If you're in a philosophy class, it still is important to be engaged in the material being spoken about. Yet, if you have your laptop and want to look up a fact for a counter-argument you're free to do so. This enhances you and your peers' educational takeaway. Professors should be looking into implementing technology and social media into their classrooms rather than turning their nose up to it. Take UVU's mandatory Ethics and Values course. With a lecture hall of a hundred or more, the professor can easily gain input by giving the class a unique Twitter hashtag to tweet their impressions. The professor can project the responses to have an open discussion about that input. This would help those who are not usual responders by giving them a forum to be heard. The strongest argument against having tech in class is that it only acts as a distraction. No doubt it is. Not only for the one using it, but their peers around them. Distractions aren't just common in the classroom but everywhere else, including the workplace. College is a place to develop habits of efficiency that we can carry into our career. Being capable of coping with others around us is essential for workplace happiness. To deal with these distractions, one can simply move out of eyesight of the screen to give full attention to the instructor, easy as that. We are adults, right? Although we, our parents, scholarships, grants or whatever it may be is paying for us to obtain a coveted diploma, that doesn't mean we should be coerced into how to attend class. This also means that we would be "adult" enough to make those decisions that will better our life, even if it means putting our phones away for fifty minutes. From my experience at UVU, most teachers allow technology use, which I appreciate. Yet, we are abusing that privilege too much. How does the professor feel when he or she sees eyes glued on our screens rather than watching them giving the prepared lecture? Yes, they're collecting their paycheck anyways, but we aren't giving them the amount of respect they deserve. Technology is a beautiful thing. But let's try not to take advantage of the time we are living in and the ones who are giving us the knowledge that we will be taking into our chosen field. LICHELLE JENKINS/UVU REVIEW The days of pad and pencel are gone. In our digital age, tech is a tool that should be treated as such. |