Sara Hardin 

Samuel Hackworth 

English 102 

6 February 2016 

Is discrimination that is still embedded in humans the reason that Georgia lawmakers will allow small business owners to refuse to service same-sex couples? 

Part 1: Personal Context- I am extremely interested in this research question because it astounds me that in the 21st century people still continue to discriminate against other people that are not like them. I feel that by now, humans should realize that everyone is different and deserves their own pursuit of happiness regardless of their sexual orientation. This research question affects me personally because I remember talking about the Georgia House Bill 756 titled "Discrimination Defense Act" in a history class in high school and my peers, both straight and gay, were all against it just as much as I was. We had a long class discussion about if providing religious freedom should really give people the ability to essentially discriminate against others and why we thought our lawmakers think that is okay to do. It is not an easy topic to explore because I do understand where the other side is getting their validation for the bill, however, I think I am qualified to write about this because I am from the state of Georgia and I saw how people I know and do not know in my community were affected by this bill, both by listening to people first-hand and by watching television news reports.  

Part 2: Three Sources- 

The first source I obtained information from is an argumentative article on the Human Rights Campaign website. The central claim is that the bill is attacking the LGBT community and other minorities, whether it was intended to or not. The major evidence supporting this claim is when the author, Stephen Peters, describes what the bill is capable of doing, which includes a paramedic being allowed to refuse providing aid to a LGBT person, business being able to not work with certain people, and school counselors to have the ability to not help a LGBT student. The major values and interests at stake are the reputation of Georgia, the higher tolerance for discrimination that can evolve from this bill and the consequences businesses can face if they are known for rejecting certain people who come into their store. Not to mention the many people who are offended and hurt by the bill. While this author is a credible writer for the Human Rights Campaign in Washington D.C. who is a National Press Secretary and founder of a company, his article could potentially be biased because he is a member of the LGBT community due to being gay. His sexual preference could make the article biased because of his strong feelings of hate for people who discriminate against him. 

The second source is an informative source because it is an online version of the official bill on the Georgia Legislature website. The central claim for this source is that this bill is passed for religious purposes to protect all people. The evidence used to back up this claim is that the bill says people are not required to sell goods or services in a situation where they feel their religious beliefs are being infringed upon. The major values at stake in this source are simply that legislators of Georgia think religion is being violated so they want to give people the power to avoid that. There are no other interests described in the bill, which explains why it is only a little over 1 page long. The authors of this source are known as credible because they are the lawmakers of Georgia, however just because they are in positions of authority does not mean they always are right or have the peoples' best interest at heart. 

The third source is an argumentative article from a news station in Augusta, GA. The central claim is that discrimination from the civil rights movement has now turned into discrimination with gay rights. The evidence to back this statement up is an interview and other quotes where the people are saying that not only is the bill unnecessary and not needed, but it also will cause harm to people and our government should be wanting to protect ALL people. Another piece of useful evidence is information that one-third of small business owners across the country think it is wrong to not provide service to certain people. The values at stake are future generations who might grow up thinking that discrimination against the LGBT community is the norm. The author of this article is a news reporter who seems credible because she includes quotes and wrote this article recently. I do not think the author would be biased for any reason because she also included an opposing opinion in the article. 

Part 3: Reflection- The research question is arguable because many religious Christian people still do not believe in gay marriage but we have also come a long way with acceptance of the LGBT community, so there is a strong divide in our country. The different perspectives help me to respect others' opinions but they in turn solidify my own. I might revise my research question by making it about the correlation between religious people and discrimination because I think it is very intriguing to research if a religious person is more likely to discriminate against LGBT people. 
