Mr. Lovitz made contradictory remarks: "We have certain civic responsibilities like paying our taxes and serving on juries and I think everyone is obligated to participate. But when it's your turn to say how you really feel, you need to say how you really feel and I just said I couldn't possibly be impartial in this moment".
His basic argument is that he "felt" discriminated against (but he didn't state a specific policy that has discriminated against him
). Had the case involved a homosexual plaintiff or defendant, perhaps there is justification for him to not be impartial because he is gay. However, I would argue that gay people can be objective and not necessarily be expected to blindly judge in favor of the side with the gay client.
More importantly, as a gay man, he would offer a different perspective to jury deliberations, something that was presumably missing after he left two days into the process. So does this mean that any Hispanic American citizen living in Arizona can refuse jury duty because he/she "feels" discriminated against (not even mentioning SB 1070
Finally, I don't understand why MSNBC plugged Mr. Lovitz's show. This made his ambiguous reason for being on the show a little more obvious to me.