By Mike Appleton, Weekend Contributor
“This bill is not about allowing discrimination. This bill is about preventing discrimination against people who are clearly living out their faith.”
-Arizona State Sen. Steve Yarbrough (R), on SB 1062.
Assaults on the civil rights of homosexuals and the acceptance of gay marriage have been the focus of a number of state legislatures. The most recent lunacy is a bill in Arizona that now awaits action by Gov. Brewer. The bill amends sections of the Arizona Revised Statutes by incorporating provisions that effectively insulate many forms of grossly discriminatory conduct from legal consequence if done under the cloak of religion. This is accomplished in three steps. First, the bill defines “exercise of religion” to include “the ability to act or refusal to act in a manner substantially motivated by a religious belief, whether or not the exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief.” Second, the bill expands the definition of “person” to include “any individual, association, partnership, corporation, church, religious assembly or institution, estate, trust, foundation or other legal entity.” I refer to this as the “Hobby Lobby” amendment. Finally, the bill prohibits, with a strict scrutiny exception, any “state action” that substantially burdens the free exercise of religion even if that state action is a law of general application.
I anticipate that the governor will veto this atrocity, not as a matter of constitutional principle, but out of concern that enactment of the law would further harm Arizona’s reputation and economic interests. But it is nonetheless disturbing that legislators would willingly employ a fundamental freedom as a weapon against a disfavored group of citizens.The legislation has been pushed by the usual suspects. Peter Sprigg, Senior Fellow for Policy Studies at the Family Research Council, has written a piece entitled “The Top Ten Harms of Same-Sex Marriage,” in which he claims, inter alia, that recognition of marital rights for gays threatens the religious liberty of “individual believers trying to live their lives in accordance with their faith not only at church, but at home, in their neighborhoods, and in the workplace.” That, of course, is merely another way of saying that Mr. Sprigg’s religious beliefs must prevail over yours in the event of a conflict, even to the point of requiring that you live somewhere other than where you may wish to live and work somewhere other than where you may wish to work. Mr. Sprigg, who was formerly the pastor of the Clifton Park Center Baptist Church in Clifton Park, New York, believes that tolerance is a synonym for endorsement.
Or consider the words of the Rev. H.M. Goodwin, who lamented the damage to “the unity of the family as a social organism,” striking “at the root of that which should be the first and foremost end of government to protect, the sacred unity of the Family.” Or perhaps don’t consider the words of Rev. Goodwin, because he wrote them in 1884 and the object of his outrage was actually the growing movement in support of women’s suffrage. In that same article, Rev. Goodwin complained of increasing secularism, an example of which was the removal of the Bible from public school classrooms at the instance of “Catholics and infidels.”
The history of this country is littered with appeals to God in defense of oppression. In 1822, Richard Furman, a church pastor in Charleston, South Carolina, wrote a letter to Gov. John Lyde Wilson claiming that slavery “is justifiable by the doctrine and example contained in Holy writ; and is, therefore, consistent with Christian uprightness, both in sentiment and conduct.” That argument became discredited through time and the Civil War, of course, but its legacy was a system of laws that persisted for decades until intervention by the courts, an intervention that the late religious leader W.A. Criswell decried as “a denial of all that we believe in” fomented by proponents of racial integration which he labeled “a bunch of infidels, dying from the neck up.”
The point is that every advance in the rights of man has had to overcome preachers of hatred and theologians of exclusion. Every attempt to admit to the fullness of civic, political and social life a group previously rejected out of ignorance and fear has been resisted by those asserting sole possession of divine truth. And years later, after the battles have been won and the opponents are long since dead, their words are finally recognized for what they are, the intolerant rants of false prophets.
In April of 1965, Lester Maddox stood at the entrance to his Pickrick Restaurant in Atlanta, axe handle in hand, to block three black Georgia Tech students from entering. Mr. Maddox closed his restaurant later that summer rather than comply with court-ordered desegregation, but carried his views all the way to the Georgia governor’s mansion several years later.
In retrospect, Mr. Maddox made a tactical error. Instead of the same old tired arguments about property rights and federalism, he should have cited the Free Exercise Clause. He should have argued that his sincerely held religious beliefs prohibited his serving a ham sandwich to the children of Ham. Or perhaps he should have moved his restaurant to Arizona, where politicians have determined that religious balkanization is a healthy trend and that religious extremism in the defense of bigotry is no vice.
Sources: Goodwin, H.M., “Women’s Suffrage,” The New Englander,” No. CLXXIX (March, 1884); Freeman, Curtis, ” ‘ Never Had I Been So Blind’: W.A. Criswell’s ‘Change’ on Racial Segregation,” Journal of Southern Religion, Vol. X (2007); Sprigg, Peter, “The Top Ten Harms of Same-Sex Marriage,” Family Research Council (2011).
A federal judge in San Antonio declared Texas’ ban on gay marriage unconstitutional Wednesday, the San Antonio Express-News reported.
But U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia issued a stay along with the ruling, according to the newspaper, so the ban remains in place for the time being.
These discussions always devolve because of judgmentalism. We need to decide how we THINK and judge ourselves, not judge others.
Christian from “Pray the Gay Away?” Finally Speaks Up, Comes Out
Published on Jun 20, 2013
Christian was a young man featured in the original “Pray the Gay Away?” episodes. After at one point announcing that he had become successfully “ex-gay” by following the teachings of Exodus, Christian retreated from the world, throwing himself even deeper into a strict Christian lifestyle and abandoning elements of his own free-spirited personality that made him the person that he was. At the last minute, Our America producers flew Christian out to attend the confrontation and apology reading meeting with Michael Bussee and Alan Chambers. After sitting quietly without saying one word during the entire meeting, it is finally Christian’s turn to speak up. Hear what he has to say in a revealing interview with Lisa Ling.
Elaine, sexuality is a powerful force. There are many failures of people trying to change themselves. It is more difficult than someone who wants to quit smoking or lose fat. Nevertheless, citing failures is a non-sequitur regarding whether it can be done or has been done. Do you quote the failure of someone to quit smoking as proof that it is impossible to quit smoking?
Surely you are aware of examples of homosexuals becoming heterosexual and heterosexuals becoming homosexual. Why are you playing dumb?
Spinelli, most people are able to think and feel at the same time. I’m sure David can speak for himself. Sometimes people are even able to speak about their feelings!
I believe homosexuality in almost all cases is genetic, However, THERE IS NO DISPOSITIVE RESEARCH. I also believe in a small %, an adolescent can go either way and the male/female role models in their world determines which way. That is what I THINK. I don’t KNOW that and I sure the f@ck don’t “FEEEEL” that.
Ah Elaine, I see I’m not the only one wondering about denial of medical care. Even the righties on Fox are concerned.
David, “THINKS”, that is what the issue is, not what he “feeeels.”
I don’t see why men who cheat on their wives are being compared to gays and lesbians.
*****
davidm said to annie:
“You assume they cannot change, without proof, and you ignore the plethora of examples of people who have changed.”
Where’s your proof, david? Oh, that’s right–you just express your opinion. You don’t post links to studies and news articles.
David, I am fully aware that you and those like you feel that you feel it’s their choice and they can change. Pray away or therapy away the gay doesn’t work and actually causes more harm. You and those who think like you regarding homosexuality are wrong. The general population doesn’t need to be sucked into your erroneous ideas. You can’t legislate nuttiness, hopefully.
Fox Hosts Wonder If Anti-Gay Bill Is ‘Overreaction’ By Religious Right (VIDEO)
Catherine Thompson
February 26, 2014
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/megyn_kelly_arizona_antigay_bill_overreaction
The rising tide of conservatives doubting the viability of Arizona’s SB 1062 measure, which would allow businesses to discriminate against LGBT individuals on the basis of “religious freedom,” has now swept through Fox News.
Megyn Kelly and fellow Fox host Brit Hume grappled Tuesday night with the implications SB 1062 would have if it were implemented. If it enabled a Christian doctor to deny medical services to a gay person, for example, Kelly said that would be “potentially dangerous.”
“We hear a lot from folks on the religious right who say they feel religion is under attack,” Kelly said. “I look at this bill and I wonder whether this is a reaction, an overreaction to people who feel under attack on this score.”
“In the end, they may have struck back in a way that’s deeply offensive to many and potentially dangerous to folks who are gay and lesbians and need medical services and other services being denied potentially,” she added.
“Well that’s right,” Hume responded, cautioning that it’s hard to tell precisely how the bill would play out as law.
Kraaken:
I don’t know if you are the only gay contributor to this blog, but I would be surprised if you are. Nonetheless, if you read my initial comment, I pointed out that although the Arizona law is designed to target gays (as acknowledged by its sponsors), it would authorize forms of discrimination that have long been regarded as constitutionally repugnant. I view the law as a desperate and dishonorable attempt to breathe new life into a dead corpse.
A great burger bar, Hodad’s in San Diego has a sign, “No shirt, no shoes, NO PROBLEM.”
Mike, wherever you go in Arizona, you will find signs that state “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” and it’s spin-off “No shirts, No shoes, No service.” The law is already HERE.
Mike, thanks for response. That makes sense.
As the ‘token gay’ contributor to this blog and someone who happens to live in Phoenix, I’ve been watching this topic to see exactly how it was going to be viewed. I have read the entire bill (BOTH pages), and NOWHERE do I find even a mention of the gay community or gays and lesbians. If I have overlooked such inclusion, PLEASE point it out to me. Or stop characterizing it as ‘anti-gay’ because this allows EQUAL discrimination, as disgusting as that may be.
Waldo:
You are partially correct. Arizona does not presently have a law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual identity. However, it is prohibited by local ordinance in the City of Phoenix. If the new statute becomes effective, it will annul the Phoenix law, which is upsetting the business community there (as well as many private citizens). I am not aware of any other cities in Arizona which would be similarly affected.
Mike Appleton wrote: “If the new statute becomes effective, it will annul the Phoenix law…”
Please explain exactly how that would happen?
The new bill makes changes to an existing statute that provides detail about how Arizona interprets the free exercise clause of the Constitution. An anti-discrimination clause for sexual orientation in Phoenix would not be annulled by this anymore than it is annulled by the Constitution. I see no conflict at all between the proposed changes to the Arizona statute and the Phoenix anti-discrimination clause. Courts simply must take both laws together and apply the normal rules of jurisprudence when deciding cases.
davidm,
It is people like you who make life more difficult for homosexuals. You support legislation that would discriminate against them. Gays and lesbians have to speak up for themselves and fight for their rights when people who are intolerant of them try to pass laws that would allow them to be treated differently than other people.
David wrote “Perhaps you do not realize that promiscuity goes along with being a gay man about like wearing makeup goes along with being a woman.”
It sounds like you are speaking from personal experience.
Sorry, samantha, but when it comes to discrimination against gays, there are only two views: support or opposition. And I have yet to hear any supporters of discrimination whose arguments were not predicated ultimately upon a belief that homosexuality is a voluntary state and a sin against God. Of course there are gays who are libertarian, Republicans and Tea Party conservatives. But those classifications relate primarily to political and economic positions. I will stand corrected if I ever encounter a gay person who believes that he or she should not be entitled to enjoy the same rights and privileges as heterosexuals.
Mike Appleton wrote: “And I have yet to hear any supporters of discrimination whose arguments were not predicated ultimately upon a belief that homosexuality is a voluntary state and a sin against God.”
You have NEVER seen me argue that homosexuality is a sin against God. Furthermore, I have acknowledged that an involuntary aspect to it exists. I disagree with the idea that it is entirely non-voluntary, like hair color or eye color.
Furthermore, I do not believe that I have ever heard a religious person argue that sexual orientation is a sin against God. Homosexuality use to mean sexual behavior, but some modern dictionaries, under pressure from the homosexual agenda that you deny exists, has changed the definition of homosexual to mean sexual orientation. This different meaning of terms between the religious and the homosexual advocates has added to the confusion.
Mike Appleton wrote: “I will stand corrected if I ever encounter a gay person who believes that he or she should not be entitled to enjoy the same rights and privileges as heterosexuals.”
There are quite a few gay people who do not believe they should follow their sexual orientation toward same sex partners. Some gays marry women and have children and raise a family. One example is Josh Weed. Find his website at:
http://www.joshweed.com/.
There is a whole website devoted to gays expressing similar views at:
http://www.mormonsandgays.org/
Here is how they articulate the church’s view on homosexuality.
“The experience of same-sex attraction is a complex reality for many people. The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is. Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them. With love and understanding, the Church reaches out to all God’s children, including our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.”
I am not part of this church, but I agree with the way they define their position concerning moral harm. It is a much more logical and rational analysis that what we see from ideologues advocating for the typical homosexual agenda.
Sorry I’m so late to the conversation. It’s my understanding that private citizens are generally free to discriminate for any reason whatsoever unless there is some law prohibiting that discrimination. Thus, discrimination on the basis of race or gender is generally prohibited by federal law. There is no federal law that generally prohibits discrimination by private citizens on the basis of sexual orientation. I believe there is no Arizona law that prohibits discrimination by private citizens on the basis of sexual orientation. Thus, this Arizona law is just symbolic posturing by everyone. What am I missing or is that correct?
Waldo wrote: “Thus, this Arizona law is just symbolic posturing by everyone. What am I missing or is that correct?”
I don’t see it as posturing. The DOMA was struck down in Windsor and the SCOTUS said it was a State issue for the State’s to decide. Furthermore, the SCOTUS overturned part of the federal counterpart to this Arizona Act (the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993), again, based upon the lack of the right of the federal government to intrude into State’s rights. The original Arizona law which this new bill attempts to amend was created in response to that. The new changes are a proper reaction to several lawsuits which have been discussed on this blog that deal with forcing photographers and bakers to participate in the wedding of gay couples.