So much for “freedom of choice.”

The media drama that played out in the wake of the adoption of Senate Bill 1062 ended with a veto by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer.

If you took Star Trek supporting actor and Facebook star George Takei’s word for it, the legislation would have brought back separate water fountains for minorities and led to segregation. Such inaccurate implications (to use the word “exaggerated” would not do Takei’s lies justice) are good for stirring up passions via misleading internet memes and stampeding the masses but fall well short in “truthiness.”

What the gay agenda media complex did not say was what triggered this legislation: harassment by homosexuals and their eager allies in the “state” of Christian small business owners who refuse to provide services, particularly of an artistic nature, at events that run counter to their religious beliefs.

Are gays so intolerant of people of faith that they feel a need to go after those who don’t feel comfortable participating in their ceremonies?

Besides, who would want to draft someone against their conscience into working what is supposed to be a personally meaningful event?

Also could businesses forced into providing services under pain of legal action later be sued if the clients were dissatisfied with their product and then be sued for damages (emotional distress), citing the defendants’ religious belief as the root of the poor service?

While non-Christians and nominal Christians might be perplexed why a little old lady with a talent for baking elaborate confections on Mondays and Tuesdays but spends her Wednesday nights in Bible study would not only pass on potentially lucrative business opportunity involving a same-sex wedding but also risk fines and imprisonment, in her mind, heart and soul she considers being even tangentially involved in such a ceremony the equivalent of committing a blasphemous act.

When they refuse to comply in the face of penalty, these observant business owners are witnessing for their faith, just like the early Christian martyrs who refused to offer sacrifices to the Roman pagan gods.

In the giddiness that followed, the most naïve amongst us boasted that the voice of the people was heard loud and clear in Brewer’s veto, but if anything it was the voice of corporations that was the most amplified, with international companies such as American Airlines, AT&T and Apple expressing their displeasure with the bill and hints that there might be economic consequences following its enactment.

Even the NFL decided to get in the act by sending out word that they were exploring Super Bowl relocation options if Senate Bill 1062 became law. All that was missing with the placement of a coyote’s head in Jan Brewer’s bed.

There was corporate America shaking down a state government, demanding that the elected representatives of the people bow down to their will. Regardless of your view on the issue, such power plays should never be cheered.

Those agnostic on the matter pointed out to the potential economic losses as their reason for opposing the law. People clinging to the “it makes sense/cents to veto it” argument abdicate weighing the matter based upon its merits. That’s not shrewd; it’s amoral.

Laws, particularly those affecting liberty, should be adopted based upon whether they are right or wrong. In matter of moral truth, economic considerations should be minimized if considered at all.

America’s view of homosexuality and gay marriage has changed over the past decade, in no small part by the entertainment industry’s overly disproportionate representation of gays in television programming.

Yet despite the bombardment of pro-gay messaging in popular culture, gay marriage has advanced largely through the men and women in black robes and not the people in the voting booths.

Matters of such importance cannot be entrusted to the whims of the hoi polloi, requiring imposition by learned legal scholars with a predilection for making rulings based upon how they think the world should be and not what the law of the land actually is.

This was never about toleration of homosexuality but about compulsory celebration of the lifestyle.

This legislation would have given legal protection for those who do not wish to participate in the “party.”

Contrary to what you might have read in social media, freedom was the big loser with Governor Brewer’s veto.

And if you think this matter is contained to florists, bakers and professional photographers, you have no appreciation for the litigious nature of gay agenda advocates.

Don’t be surprised if one day in the near future you hear about a lawsuit involving a Knights of Columbus Council’s refusal to lease their facility for a same-sex wedding event.