Clocking in at barely two pages, [the bill] was easy to scan for disparaging references to homosexuality, for veiled references to homosexuality, for any references to homosexuality at all.
They weren’t there. A headline from The Week declared, “There is nothing Christian about Arizona’s anti-gay bill.” It would be more accurate to say that there was nothing anti-gay about Arizona’s anti-gay bill.
But by the end of the piece, Lowry has whipped himself into a lather about the gays. He can't stop writing about gay people. Which is weird, considering the fact that the bill supposedly had nothing to do with gay people, right? Anyway, Lowry says this problem is best solved by, you guessed it, the market:
The market has a ready solution for [gay] couples [who were discriminated against]: There are other bakers, photographers and florists. The wedding business is not exactly bristling with hostility to gay people. If one baker won’t make a cake for gay weddings, the baker across town can hang a shingle welcoming all couples for all types of weddings.
What if "across town" is "four towns away?" What if "won't serve gay weddings" also means "won't serve Jewish weddings?" Or "won't serve interracial weddings?" As Lowry points out, the bill didn't specifically cite gayness, so what's to stop religious reasons stretching to encompass race? It's a dumb bill, and Lowry's willingness to tie himself to it as it disappears beneath the tides of history is a truly perplexing decision.