Skip to content

Larry Fitzgerald: Anti-gay laws have no place in our society

Larry Fitzgerald AP

One of Arizona’s most prominent professional athletes says he’s glad the governor vetoed a law that would have allowed anti-gay discrimination if it was motivated by religious beliefs. And he’s disappointed that the legislature ever put the law on the governor’s desk.

Cardinals receiver Larry Fitzgerald told USA Today that he was thankful for the veto, which ensured that the NFL would not pull next year’s Super Bowl out of Arizona, as was considered when Senate Bill 1026 passed.

“I didn’t think there was any chance it was going to go through,” Fitzgerald said. “I had a strong feeling it would’ve been vetoed. It’s good that it was, obviously. With the Super Bowl coming or any [event] like that, I think it just doesn’t have any place in our society. I’m happy that it’s behind us now.”

Fitzgerald is now hoping the Cardinals can become the first team ever to play a Super Bowl on their own home field.

“It’s fun. It’s going to be great for our community,” Fitzgerald said. “It’ll generate some revenue for our state, and obviously, it gives us a chance to play at home, too.”

That’s a chance Arizona might not have had if the bill had become law.

Permalink 59 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Arizona Cardinals, Rumor Mill, Top Stories
59 Responses to “Larry Fitzgerald: Anti-gay laws have no place in our society”
  1. shawon0meter says: Mar 2, 2014 8:38 AM

    Props to Fitzgerald. A guy with faith and also common sense.

  2. qwerty007qwerty007 says: Mar 2, 2014 8:44 AM

    Finally – the voice of reason from someone who is respected by all.

    Good on you, Larry. A true class act.

  3. tigerlilac says: Mar 2, 2014 8:51 AM

    Good for him.

  4. twayward says: Mar 2, 2014 8:51 AM

    glad that larry fitzgerald said “it just doesn’t have any place in our society.” sad that, in 21st century america, he had to. discrimination hurts everyone.

  5. packattack1967 says: Mar 2, 2014 8:51 AM

    Yeah Larry except it wasnt an ‘anti-gay’ law it was a law protecting religious freedom. The word gay or any sexual orientation wasnt even written in the wording.

  6. richc111 says: Mar 2, 2014 8:59 AM

    Do you really expect anyone to say anything else. It would be suicide to take any other stance. Even if you don’t believe it.

  7. purpleppleeaters says: Mar 2, 2014 9:24 AM

    twayward says: Mar 2, 2014 8:51 AM

    glad that larry fitzgerald said “it just doesn’t have any place in our society.” sad that, in 21st century america, he had to. discrimination hurts everyone.
    =========================
    Fully agreed………….including discrimination of faith.

  8. runtheball says: Mar 2, 2014 9:26 AM

    It’s not an anti-gay law. It is about the right to refuse service to whomever you want. If a gay man owns a diner and a group of people come in for lunch who routinely utter gay slurs, he should be able to refuse service.

    Any business owner should have the right to refuse service to whoever for whatever reason. If they are doing it for superficial reasons they will run themselves out of business rather quickly.

  9. luz56 says: Mar 2, 2014 9:32 AM

    Absolutely no place in today’s world…. Only here in AZ where these elected officials pass their own morals and convictions can they get away with it.. Voters are too stupid to vote them out… Good on Fitz and wish others would speak up

  10. heymister24 says: Mar 2, 2014 9:33 AM

    It is good to know that Fitzgerald is anti-religious freedom, he just disappointed a lot of his fans.

  11. SilentMajority says: Mar 2, 2014 9:33 AM

    The bill was clumsy and dumb, but there was no anti-gay language in the bill at all. If you don’t believe me go ahead and read it. Basically, it just allowed people to argue their religious beliefs. That’s it.

    The truth is that many Christians view marriage as a religious ceremony, so no one is saying that they won’t bake a cake for a gay persons high school graduation, or their birthday party.

    Like I said, it was a clumsy bill because there are no anti-gay laws on the books, and anyone now can make the argument about religious beliefs to a judge.

  12. qdog112 says: Mar 2, 2014 9:38 AM

    What Fitz said is a given. The amazing thing is that there are people around, who think the right to discriminate is in the Constitution.

    Those people have never bothered to read it.

  13. FinFan68 says: Mar 2, 2014 9:39 AM

    The proposal sounded dumb but the wording was the same as the federal law Clinton signed in ’98. There are still provisions for “discrimination” based on religious beliefs though. A preacher/priest/minister can’t be forced to conduct a gay marriage ceremony. Still, a law like that was bound to get backlash.

  14. thraiderskin says: Mar 2, 2014 9:46 AM

    Also, this is not an anti-gay law, this is a pro-small business law.

  15. thefiesty1 says: Mar 2, 2014 9:54 AM

    Dreaming if he thinks the Cards will play in and host a Super Bowl. Ain’t going to happen.

  16. saints12013 says: Mar 2, 2014 10:04 AM

    Absolutely, I know its a QB league and the greats like Peyton, Brady, Brees, and Rodgers get all the publicity, but Fitzgerald really should be considered to be the face of the NFL. The man is a great football player, a great human being, and he’s his own person and doesn’t try to be like everybody else. …..CLASS ACT…..

  17. atthemurph says: Mar 2, 2014 10:04 AM

    It was not an “anti-gay law”.

  18. flaccotoboldin says: Mar 2, 2014 10:10 AM

    Well said, Larry.

    At this point, I’m disturbed by how many people want there to be MORE active discrimination against gay people,

    1) because there already exists enough bias / discrimination, why do you want/need more?

    2) because most groups of people, unless you’re an old, rich, white, male, property owner . . . have experienced discrination in the history of this nation and in the history of the world, and should be able to related. But somehow, its not connecting.

    I’m glad that people are starting to CLEARLY speak out against the ignorance out there.

    Well done, Mr. Fitzgerald. A great WR and seemingly a great person.

  19. moerawn says: Mar 2, 2014 10:11 AM

    Problem is you have to either be gay or super pro-gay, or else you’re anti-gay. When did the NFL get to be all about sexual orientation and language?

  20. 1pwrightt says: Mar 2, 2014 10:19 AM

    When you still see the thumbs down on the comments it only reinforces there is still a lot of prejudice out there. SAD

  21. ninefingers9 says: Mar 2, 2014 10:25 AM

    Fitz has more class than the entire Seahawks team!

  22. dryzzt23 says: Mar 2, 2014 10:30 AM

    If a gay shop in San Francisco refuses to sell something to someone wearing a Jesus shirt or a pro-gun shirt, this story would be all about the “right to choose” and crap like that.

    Just like how some muslims are on a plane and “cannot be around alcohol” and they demand that all alcohol be removed from the plane…and the airline capitulates. That is sad. One religion and one lifestyle trumps everyone elses.
    What other freedoms will be taken from the people next?

  23. thatswhatimsayin says: Mar 2, 2014 10:34 AM

    People lauding the Governor’s decision should consider a few things… What constitutes freedom? What constitutes freedom of association? What constitutes private property rights? What constitutes religious freedom? Should an african american caterer be forced to cater the next Klan rally to roll through Phoenix? Should a Muslim caterer be forced to cater the next Pork Association convention? If a gay couple wants a business to cater their wedding or photograph it, and the business declines their money, move on to someone who will. In our free market, someone will take their money and word will spread. Then that business will do very well financially.

  24. GBwomenrhot says: Mar 2, 2014 10:36 AM

    Every once in awhile you see a real ‘diamond’ in the midst of all the ‘rust’ in the NFL and Society. Larry Fitzgerald has a great future in or out of the NFL.

    Thanks Larry.

  25. osiris33 says: Mar 2, 2014 10:40 AM

    Yes, allowing people to act in accordance with their faith is crime against humanity, especially when it forces 2 dudes to have to shop for a 2nd bakery to make their wedding cake. Horrific. I’m sure that’s what the founding fathers had in mind when they expressly put religious freedom into our Constitution.

  26. keltictim says: Mar 2, 2014 11:01 AM

    Larry your gonna be In NE why do you care if the cardinals play In the SB? We got a lot of teams to beat before we start thinking about that game! One game at a time lar

  27. cursedvikings1998 says: Mar 2, 2014 11:14 AM

    Larry is amazing. I hope the Cardinals make the playoffs.

  28. seatownballers says: Mar 2, 2014 11:22 AM

    nice, classy guy. Met him once and he came off friendly and intelligent

  29. psly2124 says: Mar 2, 2014 11:41 AM

    Once again it was not an anti-gay law. It was a freedom of religion law protecting individuals. Just reinforcing the constitution. Typical leftists believe whatever they hear an don’t read the bill. Idiots

  30. mypercyhurts2 says: Mar 2, 2014 12:33 PM

    Human Rights > Religious Opinions

    It should be that way every single time. Both are man-made, but only one of those spans all of us. When religious opinions trump human rights, there’s something wrong.

  31. leevi98 says: Mar 2, 2014 12:39 PM

    Oh wow! Now that a football player has declared this..I now understand!

  32. greysolon says: Mar 2, 2014 12:43 PM

    Not anti-gay– it was pro-freedom.

  33. bsizemore68 says: Mar 2, 2014 12:45 PM

    It would be nice if the Bible folks practice there beliefs at home or in there church and leave the public out of it, no, it is not an anti gay law, it is a law that allows discrimination from fools who want a cover for there hate, and it is hate that is behind this. Just think, a republican state and a republican law goes hand in hand. Bill

  34. spfripp says: Mar 2, 2014 1:01 PM

    I am not gay nor am I a religious person. I am one who is for gay rights, but forcing people to go against their religion is wrong. I am one who hates when religious people try to force their beliefs on me and I surely would not want to force my belief onto someone who did not share them. I don’t see it as discrimination, I see it as freedom of religion. Just as how every man, woman and child is created equal for there should be gay rights. There still will be a lot of other business that would be happy to serve the gay community.

  35. radar8 says: Mar 2, 2014 1:07 PM

    I love how the supporter of that bill said that it was to protect religious freedom. What a crock. Nobody has documented even one case where someone’s religious freedom was infringed upon.

    Protecting religious freedom. What a crock.

  36. kwjsb says: Mar 2, 2014 1:18 PM

    This wasn’t an “Anti-Gay” law, it did not force you to stop being gay,

    It was a pro “Freedom to practice your religion” Law, so many would not be forced to stop practicing their beliefs.

  37. zdravit says: Mar 2, 2014 1:46 PM

    Sodomy has no place in society. Fack Larry and fack this disgusting country.

  38. thegreatjimbrown says: Mar 2, 2014 2:09 PM

    They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

    He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

    Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.

  39. thegreatjimbrown says: Mar 2, 2014 2:12 PM

    “It was a pro “Freedom to practice your religion” Law, so many would not be forced to stop practicing their beliefs.”

    Is this an argument for going back to Jim Crow laws?

  40. briang123 says: Mar 2, 2014 2:27 PM

    Wait until a Muslim cab driver refuses to drive some drunks home because they imbibed in alcohol, and as a result the person drove and killed someone. You won’t see these high-minded liberals scream about discrimination or how religious beliefs don’t give you the right to deny service.

  41. granadafan says: Mar 2, 2014 2:29 PM

    Many people have been completely duped into thinking his was about religious freedom by ultra conservative talk shows. Deep down right minded people know this bill advocating discrimination is morally wrong and flat out un-American. However, people with an severe agenda are not making sense. This is the 21st century and in America, not the 1800s or even in Pakistan or Iran or Russia.

  42. jhtobias says: Mar 2, 2014 2:37 PM

    go ahead religious ones preach all you must .. I actually agree you are entitled to religious freedom as long as it does not physically urt anyone which this law did not true..

    Then you also must suffer the consequences of your actions : Hence if this law passed then the Nfl or any business for that matter has the right to pull its funds events etc from place of worship in this case Arizona.

    Remeber we also have freedom of where to choose were we want to do business and with whom.

  43. 32assassin says: Mar 2, 2014 2:44 PM

    test

  44. stevent92 says: Mar 2, 2014 2:52 PM

    Now, people can force others to participate in events that they disagree with. All in the name of “freedom” and “tolerance.”

  45. sourdoughsam says: Mar 2, 2014 3:04 PM

    Really, we discriminate all the time when we decide what type of person we will date or help in times of need. The bill was to protect business owners from being forced to provide services to people under circumstances that make them uncomfortable or defy their personal values. Bigotry is wrong, but you can’t legislate morality.

  46. thatswhatimsayin says: Mar 2, 2014 3:21 PM

    People need to read the bill (sb 1062) its on the innernetz. By the comments on here one would assume that the bill was called “anti-gay” bill.
    All it was doing was reinforcing what is already in the constitution.

    United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

    This bill was most likely in response to businesses in Colorado, Oregon and New Mexico being forced to serve gay couples even though it went against their religious beliefs. (also on the innernetz).

    Maybe governor Brewer was just scared of another lawsuit by the Obama administration like when she tried to uphold federal law and enforce immigration laws in Arizona.

  47. Robert says: Mar 2, 2014 3:26 PM

    I hope the Cardinals make it to the Super Bowl.

  48. pooflingingmonkey says: Mar 2, 2014 3:56 PM

    Those who refuse to accept that equal rights are for everyone are today’s dinosaurs, slowly headed to extinction.

    Good for Fitz.

  49. joewilliesshnoz says: Mar 2, 2014 4:16 PM

    You da man, Go Pitt.

  50. thegregwitul says: Mar 2, 2014 4:42 PM

    Religious freedom is just another phrase or excuse to hate someone that is different than you. This is 2014 people, it’s time to step out of the cave.

  51. heymister24 says: Mar 2, 2014 4:53 PM

    Larry should have had someone ‘splain the law to him, he obviously doesn’t understand about religious freedom.

  52. FinFan68 says: Mar 2, 2014 5:17 PM

    It’s obvious that most of the commenters never read the proposal. Somebody said it was anti-gay and they know they should be against that so they jump into the fray with no knowledge of it’s premise whatsoever. It is 2014, you are already on the internet, research the issues. Differing opinions or principles do not equate to “hate”.

  53. macneil4025 says: Mar 2, 2014 5:23 PM

    Arizona & Texas are fighting neck and neck for most ignorant states in the union, I have my money on Texas, but don’t underestimate Arizona, they can’t get enough of Rush Limbaugh down there in the AZ!

  54. azarkhan says: Mar 2, 2014 5:56 PM

    And I should care what a rich man like Larry Fitzgerald thinks because…?

  55. mediasloppy says: Mar 2, 2014 8:12 PM

    War on Religion. Self fulfilled delusion by those who if given the power would fire some who said happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas.

  56. 12hawksfan1976 says: Mar 2, 2014 10:37 PM

    So-called Christian “conservatives” really are something to behold. Look at yourself in the mirror and tell yourself that Jesus Christ would applaud you for this kind of bigotry in his name. Yeah, he’d give you a big ‘ole pat on the back, I’m sure. You’re fooling nobody but the man in the mirror. This legislation was state-sanctioned hate, pure and simple. And Larry’s right. It deserves the scrap heap next to Jim Crow.

  57. harveyredman says: Mar 3, 2014 10:11 AM

    To all those arguing for religious freedom…. I ask, please close your eyes and pretend it is Muslims that are trying to pass this law.

    Now tell me again how you are for it.

    funny how religious freedom only applies when it is the majority that want to further push their agenda. Last time I checked, I didn’t hear any objections to the right-wing extremists that have been picketing mosques and complaining that religious freedom shouldn’t apply to anyone that comes from a place with people with brown skin.

  58. patriotenvy says: Mar 3, 2014 10:47 AM

    We live in a society where people are allowed to post comments on here as longs they agree with the agenda… even if they are radical and unfounded. And if you post a legit rebuttal, cafefully worded and respectful, that proves those posts wrong, they will delete it over and over. THAT is the NEW America.

  59. thatswhatimsayin says: Mar 3, 2014 9:50 PM

    Hey Harveyredman, please post the examples of “right wing extremists” protesting mosques. How do you know they are either right wing or extreme? Are they wearing shirts that say “right wing extremists”?

    So I did your experiment. I closed my eyes and pretended it were Muslims that were trying to pass the same law and guess what? I came up with the same conclusion. In America you should not be sued out of business because you do not want to serve someone….for any reason. If I brought a pig to a Halal butcher (something I would never do, out of respect for their religion) to butcher my pig knowing it was expressly forbidden in their teachings to touch pork. I should not have the right to have the state fine them 3,5,7,10 thousand dollars because of it.

    People have to be careful jumping on societal bandwagon issues without thinking through, logically the end results.

    We are moving further away from being a free country

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!