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).
david, here’s the text of the bill. http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062p.pdf
If you read the bill, you’ll see that the law currently applies only to the government. The amendment would make the law applicable to “state action” which is defined to include the “application of any law, including state and local laws [e.g. Phoenix’s law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation] . . . whether the implementation or application is made or attempted to be made by the government or nongovernmental persons.” Thus, the proposed amendment would provide a defense to persons discriminating on the basis of their religious beliefs. Currently, the law applies only to government action, and not individuals.
Waldo – I understand that the law is meant to provide protection to individuals from government prosecution (State Action) for their religious belief or practice. You made the claimed that the bill provides an exception to State discrimination law. That sounds like the mantra of the homosexual agenda, but in reading the bill itself, there is no basis for that claim. Search for the word “exception” in the bill. It is not in there. I can understand the logic that if a homosexual wants to prosecute a Christian for their religious practice, this bill might block them, but that should not be interpreted to be an exception to State discrimination law. This is simply the balancing of competing anti-discrimination laws. Why aren’t the blacks complaining that this law makes an exception for anti-discrimination laws regard race or why aren’t women complaining that this law makes an exception for anti-discrimination laws regarding gender? Because the blacks and women understand that it doesn’t do what the homosexual activists claim this law does.
davidm2575
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?
*****
You said there was proof that gays can be converted. I was providing proof that one gay who had supposedly “prayed away the gay” hadn’t actually been converted. You can call that a non sequitur if you want. I don’t really care.
I don’t equate the bad habit of smoking to someone being a homosexual. That’s a bad analogy.
Elaine M wrote: “I don’t equate the bad habit of smoking to someone being a homosexual. That’s a bad analogy.”
I don’t know why you are hung up on smoking. Use the losing fat analogy then. My point is how to use logic to make your case. You don’t start listing people who have failed to lose weight to prove that it is impossible for someone to lose fat. You would have to demonstrate that there has never been a person to lose weight. Is that your position? That nobody has ever moved from homosexuality to bisexuality or that nobody has ever moved from heterosexuality to homosexuality? Do you believe that a person’s sexuality is ingrained from birth and unchangeable? Surely you do not take that position, do you?
Elaine wrote: “You said there was proof that gays can be converted.”
I NEVER used the word converted. That is not in my vocabulary. Sexuality is a continuum and it is fluid for everyone but becomes ingrained over time. Our sexuality is affected by our choices regarding sexual behavior. This is why we guard young children from sexual materials in movies and games. This is true for everyone, whether you label yourself homosexual or heterosexual or bisexual or celibate.
@ david, the Arizona law does not interpret the free exercise clause of the US constitution. That’s the job of the US Supreme Court. The Arizona law provides an religious exception to STATE discrimination law. Which seemed kinda odd to me because Arizona does not have a statewide law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Thus, superfluous to provide a religious exception when anyone is free to discriminate against homosexuals for any reason whatsoever. What I was missing, however, is that Phoenix recently enacted a municipal law prohibiting discrimination in certain areas on the basis of sexual orientation. I’m still not sure the new proposed law makes any difference however, as the one news report I found on the Phoenix law states that it already contains a religious exception. But, I’d have to compare the Phoenix law and the proposed Arizona statute to really give a considered answer to that question.
Waldo wrote: “The Arizona law provides an religious exception to STATE discrimination law.”
Where did you find that? I see no exception in the bill. It protects AGAINST discrimination. Religious discrimination. There is a lot of misinformation out there about the bill, and I fear you have fallen prey to that misinformation. If I am mistaken, please point out to me where in the bill there is this “exception to State discrimination law.”
Here is a link to the Bill and its history:
http://www.azpolicy.org/bill-tracker/religious-freedom-restoration-act-sb-1062
“Arizona’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act has been on the books since 1999 and has not been updated during that time. In light of increasing threats to religious liberty at all levels of government, SB 1062 makes important clarifications to ensure religious liberty is further protected in our state.”
Arizona needs SB 1062 to protect the religious freedom rights of every citizen.
In America, people should be free to live and work according to their faith.
Our nation was founded upon the ideal of religious freedom and the right to freely walk your faith.
People don’t forfeit their religious freedom rights simply because they go to work or start a business.
No one should ever be forced to choose between their conscience or religious beliefs and their profession.
The Constitution doesn’t only guarantee our “freedom to worship” but our freedom to practice and promote our faith.
Americans don’t have to leave their faith and convictions at their church door; we have the right to carry it with us in all aspects of our lives.
Arizona’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act needs to be updated. Due to the growing hostility towards religious freedom in our nation, it is vital that Arizona law clearly protects the religious liberty of every citizen.
Participation in religious communities should be celebrated, not penalized.
Persecuting individuals or groups for their religious beliefs creates second-class citizens who are seen as less valuable because of their faith.
This law clarifies and strengthens existing law protecting religious freedom.
In recent years, Arizona has taken significant steps to ensure the religious freedom rights of every individual. Updating the state’s RFRA is an important piece of this effort.
Is homosexuality an addiction? Some people are sex addicts and they come in the homo and hetero variety. Why continue to try to convince people that homosexuality is something that one can change if they just try hard enough? It’s simply false.
You address me CONSTANTLY. I will pay you if you stop addressing me. It would make my year!!
Spinelli, do me a favor, don’t address me, I won’t engage in any discussion with you unless I have to.
Client Fires Lobbyist Over Push To Ban Gays From NFL
By Josh Israel
February 26, 2014
http://thinkprogress.org/sports/2014/02/26/3331641/lobbyist-anti-gay-severed-ties/
A day after Washington, DC, lobbyist Jack Burkman announced that he would push for legislation to prohibit the National Football League from employing gay players, one of his clients has severed all ties with him.
DC Solar Solutions, Inc., a California-based green energy company, told ThinkProgress on Tuesday that it would no longer allow Burkman to represent the company because of his comments. The company’s CEO Jeffrey Carpoff and COO Paulette Carpoff released a joint statement saying that the company has “severed ties” with Burkman “effective immediately”:
DC Solar does not condone or support Mr. Burkman’s homophobic views, and since learning about his misguided efforts to write legislation banning gay athletes from the NFL, we have ended our relationship with him. DC Solar values diversity within our company and within our communities, and we do not tolerate discrimination of any sort. As a company working to address issues about our country’s future, we have no intention of working with those who are stuck in the past.
Other Burkman clients told ThinkProgress that they were “flabbergasted” by the anti-LGBT comments — as well as earlier comments by Burkman opposing women in the workplace — and that they wished he would focus on representing their interests rather than his own extreme views.
Elaine, yes I do. I also wonder why some love big government when it comes to controlling or discriminating against others bedroom activities or women’s autonomy in regard to their bodies, while complaining about it when it comes to other things, like guns.
annie,
Do you ever wonder why some people get so fixated on the sexual lives of other people?
A philosophical discussion about the difference between thinking and feeling is elevating a discussion. When I taught history I spent several days differentiating between the two. I would start off playing a great scene from A League of Their Own. Tom Hanks goes out to ask his catcher if he should pull his pitcher. Geena Davis starts telling him how she “feels” about her sister’s pitching. Hanks spits some chaw and then says, “I ASKED YOU WHAT YOU THINK!” Davis gets it and tells Hanks, “She’s tired, she’s growing grapefruits up there.” I would go on from there w/ many examples of the difference between thinking and feeling and how the two can get intertwined, but how we should always endeavor, to the best of our ability, to separate the two in order to properly analyze a situation, in that venue, historical or current events. Were you ever taught this getting your Master’s degree? It’s really high school level stuff, but you know how public education can be, really hit or miss.
Interesting news from Texas. Federal judge voids Texas gay marriage ban. http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2014/02/federal-judge-voids-texas-gay-marriage-ban-though-he-delays-order-from-taking-effect-immediately.html/
annie,
It actually is all about people who are judgmental and critical of gays and lesbians. These people pronounce judgment upon homosexuals. Some feel homosexuals are unclean. Some say they are promiscuous. Some believe they should be lawfully discriminated against.
Just heard, Texas strikes down same sex marriage ban! Well that will make some heads spin.
Elaine, thanks so much for the clip.
Kraaken, Our landlady is from Phoenix and she wears the “Zoni” epithet as a badge of honor. Being a PI, I love looking @ all those license plates on the wall @ Hodad’s. And Ocean Beach is like a walk back into the 60’s.
@ Spinelli,
Re read your 2:28 comment, again it’s transparent.
Mike Appleton: Yes I read your article in it’s entirety, and I did note what you said. We are simply coming at this from two different angles. Yes, three of the bills sponsors actually DID say that, but again, there is nowhere in the law that codifies that statement, and not everyone who sponsored or voted for the bill saw it in that light. In this bill, EVERYONE is discriminated against equally and in Arizona, it’s been that way for as long as I’ve lived here. It’s just that now they are trying to codify that discrimination. I don’t think Brewer is stupid enough to sign it (thank godd) because of next year’s Super Bowl (remember, it took a Super Bowl threat to get the MLK Day signed) and that’s a shame. But living in Arizona, I guess we’re used to that sort of shame.
Nick, I’ve eaten at Hodad’s and you’re right. Great burgers and everyone loves the sign!
How so?
Spinelli, this discussion hasn’t devolved, but you appear to be doing your best to make it happen.
SO WHAT? Why would anyone deny service to someone because they are promiscuous? What about other risky behaviors, sky diving, skiing, driving in a car on the freeway, dangerous, so sorry no service for you. As a nurse I was exposed to many many pathogens, should medical people be denied service because they are a a higher risk of becoming infected?