With everyone from Apple to the NFL to the Arizona Chamber of Commerce calling on Jan Brewer to veto the "Turn Away The Gay" bill—including three of the bigoted, log-stupid state senators in Arizona who voted for the damn thing (Fox News also flip-flopped on the legislation)—it looks like the law is going down. Going down with it: the campaign to persecute women and gay people under the guise of protecting "religious liberty."

UPDATE: But as Anderson Cooper pointed out last night: Brewer's veto isn't going to change anything in Arizona for LGBT people. Right now it's perfectly legal in that state to discriminate against LGBT people. No one in Arizona who wants to fire a gay person simply for being gay—or evict a lesbian from her apartment, or refuse to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple—has to point to their "sincerely held" religious beliefs. Haters in Arizona can discriminate with absolute impunity.

Maybe it would be better if Brewer did sign the bill into law. First, there would soon be a test case and a lawsuit and the courts would likely strike down the law—just Google "this Colorado cannot do" to get an idea as to why the law is unlikely to survive judicial review—and we wouldn't have to deal with anymore of this turn-away-the-gay shit. But if the courts didn't put a stay on the law (or if they failed to strike it down), the new law would at least force anti-gay bigots to justify their actions. A bigot couldn't just fire a gay person without explanation. Bigots would have to justify their actions by pointing to their sincerely held religious beliefs. Presumably that assertion could be contested. Because we're not just talking about someone's religious beliefs, we're talking about the sincerity of their beliefs. That might make for some highly entertaining courtroom scenes. Jonathan Capehart:

Under the Arizona law, any business in the state would be able to deny service to lesbian, gay, and, it’s safe to assume, bisexual and transgender people if doing so would violate the business owner’s strongly held religious beliefs. If such a business were sued for such bald-faced discrimination, the owner would simply cite the law as a defense and then would have to demonstrate that his actions were based on those beliefs. Just how does one prove how sincerely held his religious beliefs are? Do you mean to tell me that folks who hate activist judges want judges to determine the level of one’s religious sincerity? What’s the yardstick: church and Bible study attendance? Number of souls saved?

Just imagine the cross examinations. A business owner refuses to serve a gay couple and hides behind his Catholicism and the gay couple takes him to court and forces him—under oath—to prove that he's not just nominally Catholic, but that he's really most sincerely Catholic. Does he use birth control? Has he ever had premarital sex? Does he masturbate?