December 9th, 2014: Fayetteville, AR overturns civil rights ordinance passed in August. Here is the proposal. It's designed to allow the city to hear and act on complaints from residents who believe that they've been discriminated against in housing and employment.[1]
February 19th, 2015: Eureka Springs, AR passes civil rights ordinance. Again, it is designed to extend anti-discrimination protection to gay people regarding housing and employment.[2]
Arkansas Times describes this town as "famously tolerant", with an established history of passing progressive local laws. There's even a domestic partnership registry. It doesn't have much practical impact, but as a gesture it seems nice.
The same article states that the U.S. Supreme Court has already decided that it is unconstitutional for a state to ban laws that protect gay people. Specifically, Colorado, but it sets a meaningful precedent that should prove useful in the near future.
February 24th, 2015: Conway, AR passes civil rights ordinance in defiance of impending state law forbidding it.
Here's some things the Supreme Court said about the Colorado ruling: [3]
[The amendment] is at once too narrow and too broad. It identifies persons by a single trait and then denies them protection across the board. The resulting disqualification of a class of persons from the right to seek specific protection from the law is unprecedented in our jurisprudence.
[L]aws of the kind now before us raise the inevitable inference that the disadvantage imposed is born of animosity toward the class of persons affected. “[I]f the constitutional conception of ‘equal protection of the laws’ means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare … desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest.”
There are unintended consequences too. I was going to expand on this on my own, but it's better that someone else says it. In an effort to make it harder for the Supreme Court to do the same thing here that was done in Colorado, vague wording and expansive definitions were used. The end result is that in addition to making it illegal for cities to protect gay people from institutional bigotry, it may also be illegal for cities to give aid or exceptions of any sort to the elderly.
Arkansas law does not actually protect against discrimination based on age. Only federal law does that. So Hester’s bill, in addition to prohibiting cities from protecting homosexuals from discrimination, would also prohibit cities from protecting older workers. That doesn’t change the underlying point of this post, however; it simply means that there is more than one way to successfully challenge this bill in court if it becomes law.
This was also mentioned in the second link.
Frankly, it appears the Supreme Court already has your concerns in mind. When it comes to lower governments deciding to abuse their powers and oppress a minority, the precedent they set speaks volumes. Federal trumps all, thankfully. SB202 was at minimum unnecessary, but clearly malicious. In any case, it will be swept aside in short order.
We're not new to this either. In 2008, Arkansas voted on a ballot measure that would have prevented my aunt from adopting or providing foster care. Why? Because if single people are allowed to adopt, gays can do it too. My aunt isn't gay, she's just single and looks after kids as a foster mother. I've met a few of them, she's made a positive impact. She's very Christian, pays her taxes, and stays out of trouble... but that doesn't matter, so long as gays can't adopt. The collateral damage resulting from their work is acceptable to these polititians. Thankfully, that bill was thrown out for being unconstitutional.
Asa is a coward. I sincerely believe that he knows better, but he won't stand up for the people of Arkansas unless they're Tea Party puritans. The guy is not dumb, he's pushing for computer science education for a reason. We have a billion-dollar customer data merchant right here in Arkansas (Axciom). We have the largest retail corporation as well. The cost of living is cheap, the work ethic is good, the towns are safe, and it would be just as cost effective for the country to "in-source" to low cost "flyover" states like Arkansas as it would be to continue outsourcing to unstable and alien countries like India.
Whatever the reason, there's room to grow and do better. We've gone as far as we're going to go with agriculture, and Asa knows this. You can only grow so much rice. You can only milk so many cows. He wants to attract software companies, and I want to start a software company, but he's too worried about pleasing the base to do the right thing. SB202 will not attract these kinds of businesses! Even Walmart has objected to it.
Articles of interest: Texas is going a little further with their own anti-anti-discrimination efforts.
Arkansas doesn't prohibit retaliatory eviction. There's very little protection for renters. You can be kicked out of your home for being gay, and the state government has decided to protect the landlord's right to discriminate.
Vice News: Worst Place to Rent in America
Couple evicted for being gay in North Dakota. Like AR, ND has weak protections for renters.
Gay and Transgender People Face High Rates of Workplace Discrimination and Harassment - includes individual stories.
Arkansas History of LGBT Discrimination - includes individual stories.